| Title |
Measuring the quality of Patients’ goals and action plans: development and validation of a novel tool
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, December 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6947-12-152 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cayla R Teal, Paul Haidet, Ajay S Balasubramanyam, Elisa Rodriguez, Aanand D Naik |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this study is to develop and test reliability, validity, and utility of the Goal-Setting Evaluation Tool for Diabetes (GET-D). The effectiveness of diabetes self-management is predicated on goal-setting and action planning strategies. Evaluation of self-management interventions is hampered by the absence of tools to assess quality of goals and action plans. To address this gap, we developed the GET-D, a criteria-based, observer rating scale that measures the quality of patients' diabetes goals and action plans. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 | 4 | 57% |
| India | 2 | 29% |
| Canada | 1 | 14% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 57% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 29% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 79 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 12% |
| Researcher | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 16 | 20% |
| Unknown | 18 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 26% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 7% |
| Psychology | 6 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 12 | 15% |
| Unknown | 21 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 05 August 2013.
All research outputs
#6,700,826
of 22,691,736 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#638
of 1,980 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,046
of 280,466 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#20
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,691,736 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,980 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
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 280,466 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.