↓ Skip to main content

The effectiveness of medical assistant health coaching for low-income patients with uncontrolled diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia: protocol for a randomized controlled trial and baseline…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Primary Care, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
262 Mendeley
Title
The effectiveness of medical assistant health coaching for low-income patients with uncontrolled diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia: protocol for a randomized controlled trial and baseline characteristics of the study population
Published in
BMC Primary Care, February 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2296-14-27
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachel Willard-Grace, Denise DeVore, Ellen H Chen, Danielle Hessler, Thomas Bodenheimer, David H Thom

Abstract

Many patients with chronic disease do not reach goals for management of their conditions. Self-management support provided by medical assistant health coaches within the clinical setting may help to improve clinical outcomes, but most studies to date lack statistical power or methodological rigor. Barriers to large scale implementation of the medical assistant coach model include lack of clinician buy-in and the absence of a business model that will make medical assistant health coaching sustainable. This study will add to the evidence base by determining the effectiveness of health coaching by medical assistants on clinical outcomes and patient self-management, by assessing the impact of health coaching on the clinician experience, and by examining the costs and potential savings of health coaching.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 262 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 258 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 46 18%
Researcher 32 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 11%
Student > Bachelor 24 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 20 8%
Other 48 18%
Unknown 62 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 80 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 38 15%
Social Sciences 21 8%
Psychology 12 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 10 4%
Other 36 14%
Unknown 65 25%
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 23 February 2013.
All research outputs
#15,518,326
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from BMC Primary Care
#1,432
of 2,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,701
of 205,563 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Primary Care
#16
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,359 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 205,563 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.