↓ Skip to main content

Identifying people with a learning disability: an advanced search for general practice

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, October 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 (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
24 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Identifying people with a learning disability: an advanced search for general practice
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, October 2017
DOI 10.3399/bjgp17x693461
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amy M Russell, Louise Bryant, Allan House

Abstract

People with learning disabilities (LD) have poor physical and mental health when compared with the general population. They are also likely to find it more difficult than others to describe their symptoms adequately. It is therefore harder for healthcare workers to identify the health needs of those with learning disabilities, with the danger of some problems being left unrecognised. Practice registers record only a proportion of those who are eligible, making it difficult to target improvements in their health care. To test a Read Code search supporting the identification of people with a mild-to-moderate learning disability who are not currently on the learning disability register. An observational study in primary care in West Yorkshire. Read Code searches were created to identify individuals with a learning disability not on the LD register; they were field tested and further refined before testing in general practice. Diagnostic codes identified small numbers of individuals who should have been on the LD register. Functional and service use codes often created large numbers of false-positive results. The specific descriptive codes 'Learning difficulties' and 'Referral to learning disability team' needed follow-up review, and then identified some individuals with LD who were not on the register. The Read Code search supported practices to populate their registers and was quick to run and review, making it a viable choice to support register revalidation. However, it did not find large numbers of people eligible for the LD register who were previously unidentified by their practice, suggesting that additional complementary methods are required to support practices to validate their registers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 84 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 12%
Researcher 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 11%
Student > Postgraduate 7 8%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 29 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 15%
Psychology 7 8%
Social Sciences 6 7%
Unspecified 3 4%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 31 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 04 December 2017.
All research outputs
#2,304,940
of 24,176,243 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#1,118
of 4,513 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,484
of 331,956 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#33
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,176,243 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,513 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 331,956 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 97 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.