| Title |
Why do GPs hesitate to refer diabetes patients to a self-management education program: a qualitative study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Primary Care, September 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2296-12-94 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Patricia Sunaert, Marie Vandekerckhove, Hilde Bastiaens, Luc Feyen, Piet Vanden Bussche, Jan De Maeseneer, An De Sutter, Sara Willems |
| Abstract |
Self-management support is seen as a cornerstone of good diabetes care and many countries are currently engaged in initiatives to integrate self-management support in primary care. Concerning the organisation of these programs, evidence is growing that engagement of health care professionals, in particular of GPs, is critical for successful application. This paper reports on a study exploring why a substantial number of GPs was (initially) reluctant to refer patients to a self-management education program in Belgium. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 States | 1 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 2 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Pakistan | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 103 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 22 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 10% |
| Researcher | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 23 | 21% |
| Unknown | 22 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 21 | 19% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 11% |
| Psychology | 7 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 14 | 13% |
| Unknown | 25 | 23% |
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 03 October 2011.
All research outputs
#19,944,994
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from BMC Primary Care
#1,890
of 2,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,632
of 136,352 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Primary Care
#25
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,359 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 136,352 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.