| Title |
Patient empowerment in long-term conditions: development and preliminary testing of a new measure
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, July 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6963-13-263 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nicola Small, Peter Bower, Carolyn A Chew-Graham, Diane Whalley, Joanne Protheroe |
| Abstract |
Patient empowerment is viewed by policy makers and health care practitioners as a mechanism to help patients with long-term conditions better manage their health and achieve better outcomes. However, assessing the role of empowerment is dependent on effective measures of empowerment. Although many measures of empowerment exist, no measure has been developed specifically for patients with long-term conditions in the primary care setting. This study presents preliminary data on the development and validation of such a measure. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 8 | 44% |
| United States | 3 | 17% |
| Canada | 1 | 6% |
| Spain | 1 | 6% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 4 | 22% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 61% |
| Scientists | 5 | 28% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 339 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | <1% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Vietnam | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 329 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 62 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 49 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 39 | 12% |
| Researcher | 29 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 26 | 8% |
| Other | 61 | 18% |
| Unknown | 73 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 71 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 71 | 21% |
| Psychology | 33 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 32 | 9% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 18 | 5% |
| Other | 29 | 9% |
| Unknown | 85 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 20 August 2015.
All research outputs
#3,195,628
of 24,284,650 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,445
of 8,182 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,716
of 198,336 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#17
of 133 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,284,650 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,182 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 198,336 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 133 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.