↓ Skip to main content

Health information exchange for patients with intellectual disabilities: a general practice perspective

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, August 2016
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
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Health information exchange for patients with intellectual disabilities: a general practice perspective
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, August 2016
DOI 10.3399/bjgp16x686593
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mathilde Mastebroek, Jenneken Naaldenberg, Francine A van den Driessen Mareeuw, Geraline L Leusink, Antoine Lm Lagro-Janssen, Henny Mj van Schrojenstein Lantman-de Valk

Abstract

Inadequate health information exchange (HIE) between patients with intellectual disabilities (ID), their carers, and GPs may lead to ineffective treatment and poor treatment compliance. Factors influencing HIE are largely unexplored in previous research. To provide insight into the perceived HIE facilitators of GPs and general practice assistants, and the barriers in GP consultations for patients with ID. An interview-based study with GPs (n = 19) and general practice assistants (n = 11) in the Netherlands. Semi-structured interviews were conducted on topics relating to stages during and around GP consultation. Transcripts were coded and analysed using framework analysis. The main themes were impaired medical history taking and clinical decision making, and fragile patient follow-up. Factors negatively influencing HIE related to patient communication skills and professional carers' actions in preparing the consultation and in collecting, recording, and sharing information. HIE barriers resulted in risk of delay in diagnosis and treatment, misdiagnosis, unnecessary tests, and ineffective treatment regimens. HIE facilitators were described in terms of GP adjustments in communication, planning of consultations, and efforts to compensate for fragile follow-up situations. Inadequate HIE should be seen as a chain of events leading to less effective consultations, substandard treatment, and insufficient patient follow-up. The results indicate a mismatch between GPs' expectations about professional carers' competencies, responsibilities, and roles in HIE and the setting in which professional carers operate. Further research should focus on how daily GP practice can be attuned to the practicalities of HIE with patients with ID and their professional carers.

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 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 82 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 22%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 13%
Student > Bachelor 10 12%
Student > Master 8 10%
Researcher 6 7%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 19 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 15 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 16%
Psychology 11 13%
Social Sciences 8 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 24 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 22 May 2017.
All research outputs
#13,407,768
of 22,896,955 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#2,849
of 4,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,121
of 366,405 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#57
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,896,955 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,287 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.5. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 366,405 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.