↓ Skip to main content

Patient and Public Involvement in the Development of Healthcare Guidance: An Overview of Current Methods and Future Challenges

Overview of attention for article published in The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#14 of 575)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
53 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 Mendeley
Title
Patient and Public Involvement in the Development of Healthcare Guidance: An Overview of Current Methods and Future Challenges
Published in
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, November 2016
DOI 10.1007/s40271-016-0206-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ahmed Rashid, Victoria Thomas, Toni Shaw, Gillian Leng

Abstract

Clinical guidelines and health technology assessments are valuable instruments to improve the quality of healthcare delivery and aim to integrate the best available evidence with real-world, expert context. The role of patient and public involvement in their development has grown in recent decades, and this article considers the international literature exploring aspects of this participation, including the integration of experiential and scientific knowledge, recruitment strategies, models of involvement, stages of involvement, and methods of evaluation. These developments have been underpinned by the parallel rise of public involvement and evidence-based medicine as important concepts in health policy. Improving the recruitment of guideline group chairs, widening evidence reviews to include patient preference studies, adapting guidance presentation to highlight patient preference points and providing clearer instructions on how patient organisations can submit their intelligence are emerging proposals that may further enhance patient and public involvement in their processes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 53 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 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 94 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 15%
Other 11 12%
Student > Master 11 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 9%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 24 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 14%
Psychology 8 9%
Social Sciences 8 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 5%
Other 16 17%
Unknown 25 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 37. 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 28 September 2017.
All research outputs
#1,071,946
of 25,074,338 outputs
Outputs from The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research
#14
of 575 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,818
of 319,862 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research
#2
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,074,338 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 575 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 319,862 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.