| Title |
What is a good medical decision? A research agenda guided by perspectives from multiple stakeholders
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Behavioral Medicine, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10865-016-9785-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jada G. Hamilton, Sarah E. Lillie, Dana L. Alden, Laura Scherer, Megan Oser, Christine Rini, Miho Tanaka, John Baleix, Mikki Brewster, Simon Craddock Lee, Mary K. Goldstein, Robert M. Jacobson, Ronald E. Myers, Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, Erika A. Waters |
| Abstract |
Informed and shared decision making are critical aspects of patient-centered care, which has contributed to an emphasis on decision support interventions to promote good medical decision making. However, researchers and healthcare providers have not reached a consensus on what defines a good decision, nor how to evaluate it. This position paper, informed by conference sessions featuring diverse stakeholders held at the 2015 Society of Behavioral Medicine and Society for Medical Decision Making annual meetings, describes key concepts that influence the decision making process itself and that may change what it means to make a good decision: interpersonal factors, structural constraints, affective influences, and values clarification methods. This paper also proposes specific research questions within each of these priority areas, with the goal of moving medical decision making research to a more comprehensive definition of a good medical decision, and enhancing the ability to measure and improve the decision making process. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 75% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 107 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 20 | 19% |
| Researcher | 14 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 8% |
| Other | 26 | 24% |
| Unknown | 19 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 11% |
| Psychology | 10 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 15 | 14% |
| Unknown | 27 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 December 2017.
All research outputs
#13,241,926
of 22,883,326 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Behavioral Medicine
#703
of 1,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,436
of 338,633 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Behavioral Medicine
#16
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,883,326 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,074 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 338,633 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.