↓ Skip to main content

What Do High-Risk Patients Value? Perspectives on a Care Management Program

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
139 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
Title
What Do High-Risk Patients Value? Perspectives on a Care Management Program
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, October 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11606-017-4200-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ishani Ganguli, E. John Orav, Eric Weil, Timothy G. Ferris, Christine Vogeli

Abstract

There is growing interest in coordinating care for high-risk patients through care management programs despite inconsistent results on cost reduction. Early evidence suggests patient-centered benefits, but we know little about how participants engage with the programs and what aspects they value. To explore care management program participants' awareness and perceived utility of program offerings. Cross-sectional telephone survey administered December 2015-January 2016. Patients enrolled in a Boston-area primary care-based care management program. Our main outcome was the number of topics in which patients reported having "very helpful" interactions with their care team in the past year. We analyzed awareness of one's care manager as an intermediate outcome, and then as a primary predictor of the main outcome, along with patient demographics, years in the program, attitudes, and worries as secondary predictors. The survey response rate was 45.8% (n = 1220); non-respondents were similar to respondents. More respondents reported worrying about family (72.8%) or financial issues (52.5%) than about their own health (41.6%). Seventy-four percent reported care manager awareness, particularly women (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.01-1.77) and those with more years in the program (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.03-1.30). While interaction rates ranged from 19.8% to 72.4% across topics, 81.3% rated at least one interaction as very helpful. Those who were aware of their care manager reported very helpful interactions on more topics (OR 2.77, 95% CI 2.15-3.56), as did women (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.00-1.55), younger respondents (OR 0.98 for older age, 95% CI 0.97-0.99), and those with higher risk scores (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.06), preference for deferring treatment decisions to doctors (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.60-2.50), and reported control over their health (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.33-2.10). High-risk patients reported helpful interactions with their care team around medical and social determinants of health, particularly those who knew their care manager. Promoting care manager awareness may help participants make better use of the program.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 139 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 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Researcher 6 10%
Student > Master 6 10%
Other 4 6%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Other 14 22%
Unknown 21 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 11%
Social Sciences 6 10%
Psychology 4 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 25 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 97. 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 July 2023.
All research outputs
#436,926
of 25,513,063 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#342
of 8,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,285
of 331,301 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#6
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,513,063 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,209 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.1. 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 331,301 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 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 90% of its contemporaries.