| Title |
Assessing the Burden of Treatment
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11606-017-4117-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gabriela Spencer-Bonilla, Ana R. Quiñones, Victor M. Montori, On behalf of the International Minimally Disruptive Medicine Workgroup |
| Abstract |
Current healthcare systems and guidelines are not designed to adapt to care for the large and growing number of patients with complex care needs and those with multimorbidity. Minimally disruptive medicine (MDM) is an approach to providing care for complex patients that advances patients' goals in health and life while minimizing the burden of treatment. Measures of treatment burden assess the impact of healthcare workload on patient function and well-being. At least two of these measures are now available for use with patients living with chronic conditions. Here, we describe these measures and how they can be useful for clinicians, researchers, managers, and policymakers. Their work to improve the care of high-cost, high-use, complex patients using innovative patient-centered models such as MDM should be supported by periodic large-scale assessments of treatment burden. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 55 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 States | 12 | 22% |
| United Kingdom | 7 | 13% |
| Spain | 5 | 9% |
| Canada | 2 | 4% |
| Finland | 1 | 2% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 2% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 23 | 42% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 27 | 49% |
| Scientists | 19 | 35% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 11% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 117 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 20 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 13% |
| Other | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 22 | 19% |
| Unknown | 23 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 40 | 34% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 6% |
| Psychology | 5 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 19 | 16% |
| Unknown | 26 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 21 December 2022.
All research outputs
#1,268,829
of 25,757,133 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1,006
of 8,253 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,569
of 325,814 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#9
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,757,133 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 8,253 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 325,814 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 72 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.