↓ Skip to main content

Older Adults’ Perceptions of the Causes and Consequences of Healthcare Overuse: A Qualitative Study

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, January 2018
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 (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
50 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
Title
Older Adults’ Perceptions of the Causes and Consequences of Healthcare Overuse: A Qualitative Study
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11606-017-4264-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ariel R. Green, Monica Tung, Jodi B. Segal

Abstract

Overuse of healthcare is pervasive in the United States, often exposing patients to harm with little likelihood of benefit. Older Americans are particularly vulnerable to overuse and impacted by it, yet it is unknown whether older patients perceive overuse as a consequential problem. To explore the experiences and perspectives of older adults with respect to healthcare overuse in order to develop a framework for understanding and reducing overuse in older adults. Qualitative study using focus group methodology. Five focus groups were held with people ≥65 years of age (N = 38) in four senior centers in Baltimore, Maryland, in 2016. Transcripts were analyzed using qualitative content analysis to identify major themes. Of the 38 participants, 28 were women and 29 were African-American; 31 had at least a 12th grade education. While virtually all reported experience with what they perceived to have been healthcare overuse, some expressed concern that they had been denied appropriate care. They perceived overuse to have occurred when interventions were applied in the absence of symptoms (excluding cancer screening), did not improve symptoms, were discordant with their preferences, or were duplicative. Some defined overuse as interventions that were offered before less intensive options or too early in the course of disease. Suggested contributors to overuse were poor quality communication between patients and healthcare providers, and between different healthcare providers. Participants reported suffering from treatment effects, high costs, worry, and inconvenience from what they perceived to be overuse. They suggested that overuse may be reduced when the patient is involved in decision making and has a trusted primary care doctor. The experience of older adults highlights potential sites of intervention to reduce healthcare overuse. Engaging patients in shared decision making and enhancing communication and knowledge transfer should be tested as interventions to reduce perceived overuse.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 50 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 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 15%
Student > Master 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 13%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 16 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 18%
Social Sciences 7 11%
Psychology 3 5%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 19 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 June 2018.
All research outputs
#1,380,243
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1,084
of 8,246 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,091
of 452,611 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#29
of 140 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 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 8,246 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 452,611 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 140 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.