↓ Skip to main content

Implementing clinical guidelines for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: barriers and solutions.

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Thoracic Disease, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 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
Implementing clinical guidelines for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: barriers and solutions.
Published in
Journal of Thoracic Disease, November 2014
DOI 10.3978/j.issn.2072-1439.2014.11.25
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeff D Overington, Yao C Huang, Michael J Abramson, Juliet L Brown, John R Goddard, Rayleen V Bowman, Kwun M Fong, Ian A Yang

Abstract

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a complex chronic lung disease characterised by progressive fixed airflow limitation and acute exacerbations that frequently require hospitalisation. Evidence-based clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and management of COPD are now widely available. However, the uptake of these COPD guidelines in clinical practice is highly variable, as is the case for many other chronic disease guidelines. Studies have identified many barriers to implementation of COPD and other guidelines, including factors such as lack of familiarity with guidelines amongst clinicians and inadequate implementation programs. Several methods for enhancing adherence to clinical practice guidelines have been evaluated, including distribution methods, professional education sessions, electronic health records (EHR), point of care reminders and computer decision support systems (CDSS). Results of these studies are mixed to date, and the most effective ways to implement clinical practice guidelines remain unclear. Given the significant resources dedicated to evidence-based medicine, effective dissemination and implementation of best practice at the patient level is an important final step in the process of guideline development. Future efforts should focus on identifying optimal methods for translating the evidence into everyday clinical practice to ensure that patients receive the best care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 14 17%
Researcher 10 12%
Other 9 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Other 18 22%
Unknown 17 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 13%
Social Sciences 7 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 20 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 06 December 2014.
All research outputs
#17,289,387
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Thoracic Disease
#1,246
of 2,501 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,361
of 273,825 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Thoracic Disease
#22
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,501 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 273,825 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.