↓ Skip to main content

Are all outcomes in chronic heart failure rated equally? An argument for a patient-centred approach to outcome assessment

Overview of attention for article published in Heart Failure Reviews, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
Title
Are all outcomes in chronic heart failure rated equally? An argument for a patient-centred approach to outcome assessment
Published in
Heart Failure Reviews, December 2012
DOI 10.1007/s10741-012-9369-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sungwon Chang, Phillip J. Newton, Sally Inglis, Tim Luckett, Henry Krum, Peter Macdonald, Patricia M. Davidson

Abstract

Chronic heart failure (CHF) is a multi-dimensional and complex syndrome. Outcome measures are important for determining both the efficacy and quality of care and capturing the patient's perspective in evaluating the outcomes of health care delivery. Capturing the patient's perspective via patient-reported outcomes is increasingly important; however, including objective measures such as mortality would provide more complete account of outcomes important to patients. Currently, no single measure for CHF outcomes captures all dimensions of the quality of care from the patient's perspective. To describe the role of outcome measures in CHF from the perspective of patients, a structured literature review was undertaken. This review discusses the concepts and methodological issues related to measurement of CHF outcomes. Outcome assessment at the level of the patient, provider and health care system were identified as being important. The perspectives of all stakeholders should be considered when developing an outcomes measurement suite to inform CHF health care. This paper recommends that choice of outcome measures should depend on their ability to provide a comprehensive, comparable, meaningful and accurate assessment that are important to patient.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
Unknown 49 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 14%
Other 6 12%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Professor 3 6%
Other 11 22%
Unknown 11 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 18%
Psychology 4 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 14 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 24 June 2014.
All research outputs
#17,673,866
of 22,689,790 outputs
Outputs from Heart Failure Reviews
#523
of 663 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,612
of 278,890 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Heart Failure Reviews
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,689,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 663 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 278,890 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.