↓ Skip to main content

A randomized study of telephonic care support in populations at risk for musculoskeletal preference-sensitive surgeries

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
237 Mendeley
Title
A randomized study of telephonic care support in populations at risk for musculoskeletal preference-sensitive surgeries
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, February 2013
DOI 10.1186/1472-6947-13-21
Pubmed ID
Authors

David R Veroff, Tamara Ochoa-Arvelo, Benjamin Venator

Abstract

The rate of elective surgeries varies dramatically by geography in the United States. For many of these surgeries, there is not clear evidence of their relative merits over alternate treatment choices and there are significant tradeoffs in short- and long-term risks and benefits of selecting one treatment option over another. Conditions and symptoms for which there is this lack of a single clear evidence-based treatment choice present great opportunities for patient and provider collaboration on decision making; back pain and joint osteoarthritis are two such ailments. A number of decision aids are in active use to encourage this shared decision-making process. Decision aids have been assessed in formal studies that demonstrate increases in patient knowledge, increases in patient-provider engagement, and reduction in surgery rates. These studies have not widely demonstrated the added benefit of health coaching in support of shared decision making nor have they commonly provided strong evidence of cost reductions. In order to add to this evidence base, we undertook a comparative study testing the relative impact on health utilization and costs of active outreach through interactive voice response technology to encourage health coaching in support of shared decision making in comparison to mailed outreach or no outreach. This study focused on individuals with back pain or joint pain.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 237 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 1%
United States 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 228 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 44 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 13%
Researcher 24 10%
Student > Bachelor 24 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 5%
Other 41 17%
Unknown 62 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 60 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 41 17%
Psychology 15 6%
Social Sciences 14 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 7 3%
Other 29 12%
Unknown 71 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 09 November 2013.
All research outputs
#13,751,991
of 23,314,015 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1,005
of 2,024 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,805
of 285,939 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#33
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,314,015 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,024 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 285,939 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.