↓ Skip to main content

Patient involvement in the development of patient-reported outcome measures: The developers’ perspective

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, September 2017
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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
40 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 Mendeley
Title
Patient involvement in the development of patient-reported outcome measures: The developers’ perspective
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2582-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bianca Wiering, Dolf de Boer, Diana Delnoij

Abstract

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used in health care. To capture the patient's perspective, patient involvement in PROM development is needed. As earlier research showed varying degrees of patient involvement in PROM development, this study aimed to investigate why PROM developers do or do not involve patients, how patients can be successfully involved and what the negative aspects and benefits of patient involvement are. PROM developers who, according to an earlier scoping review, involved patients in at least two phases of PROM development or did not involve patients at all, were contacted for a telephone interview. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed using a general inductive approach. From the PROM developers who involved patients, 21 developers were interviewed and three answered questions via e-mail. Most developers considered patient involvement necessary to create a valid questionnaire and relied on guidelines, personal experience and practical considerations for choosing a qualitative method. Negative aspects of patient involvement were mainly time investment and budget impact. One developer who did not involve patients was interviewed. Two developers sent back answers via e-mail. These developers did not involve patients because of limited resources or because no benefits were expected. Although PROM developers agree that patient involvement is necessary, a lack of resources can be a stumbling block. Most developers rely on guidelines, personal experience or practical considerations for choosing a qualitative method. Although this may be a good place to start, to optimize patient involvement developers should explicitly think about which methods would suit their study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 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 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 83 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 18%
Researcher 13 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 14%
Other 5 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 22 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 16%
Psychology 7 8%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 15 18%
Unknown 26 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 14 May 2018.
All research outputs
#1,312,286
of 25,413,176 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#387
of 8,650 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,969
of 323,730 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#13
of 136 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,413,176 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,650 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 95% 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 323,730 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 136 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 91% of its contemporaries.