| Title |
Information needs in people with diabetes mellitus: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-018-0690-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lisa Biernatzki, Silke Kuske, Jutta Genz, Michaela Ritschel, Astrid Stephan, Christina Bächle, Sigrid Droste, Sandra Grobosch, Nicole Ernstmann, Nadja Chernyak, Andrea Icks |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this study was to identify and analyse currently available knowledge on information needs of people with diabetes mellitus, also considering possible differences between subgroups and associated factors. Twelve databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched up until June 2015. Publications that addressed self-reported information needs of people with diabetes mellitus were included. Each study was assessed by using critical appraisal tools, e.g. from the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Extraction and content analysis were performed systematically. In total, 1993 publications were identified and 26 were finally included. Nine main categories of information needs were identified, including 'treatment-process', 'course of disease', 'abnormalities of glucose metabolism' and 'diabetes through the life cycle'. Differences between patient subgroups, such as type of diabetes or age, were sparsely analysed. Some studies analysed associations between information needs and factors such as participation preferences or information seeking. They found, for example, that information needs on social support or life tasks were associated with information seeking in Internet forums. Information needs in people with diabetes mellitus, appear to be high, yet poorly investigated. Research is needed regarding differences between diverse diabetes populations, including gender aspects or changes in information needs during the disease course. The review protocol has been registered at Prospero ( CRD42015029610 ). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 50% |
| Peru | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 83% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 94 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 15% |
| Lecturer | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 11% |
| Researcher | 8 | 9% |
| Other | 20 | 21% |
| Unknown | 22 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 20 | 21% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 4% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 10 | 11% |
| Unknown | 30 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 20 February 2018.
All research outputs
#7,386,705
of 23,509,982 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,288
of 2,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,420
of 448,713 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#40
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,509,982 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,043 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. 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 448,713 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.