| Title |
‘Practical’ resources to support patient and family engagement in healthcare decisions: a scoping review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, April 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6963-14-175 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Katharina Kovacs Burns, Mandy Bellows, Carol Eigenseher, Jennifer Gallivan |
| Abstract |
Extensive literature exists on public involvement or engagement, but what actual tools or guides exist that are practical, tested and easy to use specifically for initiating and implementing patient and family engagement, is uncertain. No comprehensive review and synthesis of general international published or grey literature on this specific topic was found. A systematic scoping review of published and grey literature is, therefore, appropriate for searching through the vast general engagement literature to identify 'patient/family engagement' tools and guides applicable in health organization decision-making, such as within Alberta Health Services in Alberta, Canada. This latter organization requested this search and review to inform the contents of a patient engagement resource kit for patients, providers and leaders. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 48 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 12 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 9 | 19% |
| United States | 6 | 13% |
| Colombia | 2 | 4% |
| Israel | 1 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| India | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 14 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 21 | 44% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 14 | 29% |
| Scientists | 11 | 23% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 188 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| Canada | 2 | 1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 182 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 31 | 16% |
| Researcher | 28 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 27 | 14% |
| Other | 13 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 7% |
| Other | 40 | 21% |
| Unknown | 36 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 46 | 24% |
| Social Sciences | 29 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 27 | 14% |
| Psychology | 12 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 23 | 12% |
| Unknown | 47 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 25 June 2023.
All research outputs
#1,161,576
of 25,262,379 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#314
of 8,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,122
of 233,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#4
of 129 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,262,379 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 8,576 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 233,443 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 129 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 97% of its contemporaries.