↓ Skip to main content

Supporting Shared Decision-making for Children’s Complex Behavioral Problems: Development and User Testing of an Option Grid™ Decision Aid

Overview of attention for article published in Community Mental Health Journal, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 Mendeley
Title
Supporting Shared Decision-making for Children’s Complex Behavioral Problems: Development and User Testing of an Option Grid™ Decision Aid
Published in
Community Mental Health Journal, April 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10597-017-0136-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Erin R. Barnett, Elizabeth A. Boucher, William B. Daviss, Glyn Elwyn

Abstract

There is a lack of research to guide collaborative treatment decision-making for children who have complex behavioral problems, despite the extensive use of mental health services in this population. We developed and pilot-tested a one-page Option Grid™ patient decision aid to facilitate shared decision-making for these situations. An editorial team of parents, child psychiatrists, researchers, and other stakeholders developed the scope and structure of the decision aid. Researchers included information about a carefully chosen number of psychosocial and pharmacological treatment options, using descriptions based on the best available evidence. Using semi-structured qualitative interviews (n = 18), we conducted user testing with four parents and four clinical prescribers and field testing with four parents, four clinical prescribers, and two clinic administrators. The researchers coded and synthesized the interview responses using mixed inductive and deductive methods. Parents, clinicians, and administrators felt the Option Grid had significant value, although they reported that additional training and other support would be required in order to successfully implement the Option Grid and achieve shared decision-making in clinical practice.

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 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 89 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 12%
Student > Master 11 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Other 5 6%
Other 21 24%
Unknown 21 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 21 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 15%
Social Sciences 8 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Neuroscience 3 3%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 27 30%
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 15 January 2018.
All research outputs
#17,926,658
of 23,016,919 outputs
Outputs from Community Mental Health Journal
#953
of 1,293 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,416
of 310,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Community Mental Health Journal
#17
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,016,919 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,293 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 310,169 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.