| Title |
Impact of effectiveness information format on patient choice of therapy and satisfaction with decisions about chronic disease medication: the "Influence of intervention Methodologies on Patient Choice of Therapy (IMPACT)" cluster-randomised trial in general practice
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, February 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6963-13-76 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Charlotte Gry Harmsen, Dorte Ejg Jarbøl, Jørgen Nexøe, Henrik Støvring, Dorte Gyrd-Hansen, Jesper Bo Nielsen, Adrian Edwards, Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen |
| Abstract |
Risk communication is an integral part of shared decision-making in health care. In the context of interventions for chronic diseases it represents a particular challenge for all health practitioners. By using two different quantitative formats to communicate risk level and effectiveness of a cholesterol-lowering drug, we posed the research question: how does the format of risk information influence patients' decisions concerning therapy, patients' satisfaction with the communication as well as confidence in the decision. We hypothesise that patients are less prone to accept therapy when the benefits of long-term intervention are presented in terms of prolongation of life (POL) in months compared to the absolute risk reduction (ARR). We hypothesise that patients presented with POL will be more satisfied with the communication and confident in their decision, suggesting understanding of the time-related term. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 121 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 20 | 17% |
| Researcher | 17 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 20 | 17% |
| Unknown | 29 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 37 | 31% |
| Psychology | 14 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 10 | 8% |
| Unknown | 39 | 32% |
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 25 February 2013.
All research outputs
#18,331,227
of 22,699,621 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#6,438
of 7,592 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,034
of 193,194 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#81
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,699,621 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,592 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 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 193,194 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 97 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.