↓ Skip to main content

Interventions and assessment tools addressing key concepts people need to know to appraise claims about treatment effects: a systematic mapping review

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
44 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 Mendeley
Title
Interventions and assessment tools addressing key concepts people need to know to appraise claims about treatment effects: a systematic mapping review
Published in
Systematic Reviews, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0389-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Astrid Austvoll-Dahlgren, Allen Nsangi, Daniel Semakula

Abstract

People's ability to appraise claims about treatment effects is crucial for informed decision-making. Our objective was to systematically map this area of research in order to (a) provide an overview of interventions targeting key concepts that people need to understand to assess treatment claims and (b) to identify assessment tools used to evaluate people's understanding of these concepts. The findings of this review provide a starting point for decisions about which key concepts to address when developing new interventions, and which assessment tools should be considered. We conducted a systematic mapping review of interventions and assessment tools addressing key concepts important for people to be able to assess treatment claims. A systematic literature search was done by a reserach librarian in relevant databases. Judgement about inclusion of studies and data collection was done by at least two researchers. We included all quantitative study designs targeting one or more of the key concepts, and targeting patients, healthy members of the public, and health professionals. The studies were divided into four categories: risk communication and decision aids, evidence-based medicine and critical appraisal, understanding of controlled trials, and science education. Findings were summarised descriptively. We included 415 studies, of which the interventions and assessment tools we identified included only a handful of the key concepts. The most common key concepts in interventions were "Treatments usually have beneficial and harmful effects," "Treatment comparisons should be fair," "Compare like with like," and "Single studies can be misleading." A variety of assessment tools were identified, but only four assessment tools included 10 or more key concepts. There is great potential for developing learning and assessment tools targeting key concepts that people need to understand to assess claims about treatment effects. There is currently no instrument covering assessment of all these key concepts.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 44 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 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 87 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 14%
Researcher 10 11%
Librarian 8 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 19 22%
Unknown 24 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 22%
Social Sciences 10 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Psychology 4 5%
Other 17 20%
Unknown 28 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 12 October 2018.
All research outputs
#1,592,691
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#240
of 2,242 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,892
of 423,694 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#13
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,242 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 423,694 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.