↓ Skip to main content

First medical contact in patients with STEMI and its impact on time to diagnosis; an explorative cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
12 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 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
First medical contact in patients with STEMI and its impact on time to diagnosis; an explorative cross-sectional study
Published in
BMJ Open, April 2015
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007059
Pubmed ID
URN
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-119268
Authors

Ingela Thylén, Maria Ericsson, Karin Hellström Ängerud, Rose-Marie Isaksson, Sofia Sederholm Lawesson

Abstract

It is unknown into what extent patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) utilise a joint service number (Swedish Healthcare Direct, SHD) as first medical contact (FMC) instead of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and how this impact time to diagnosis. We aimed to (1) describe patients' FMC; (2) find explanatory factors influencing their FMC (ie, EMS and SHD) and (3) explore the time interval from symptom onset to diagnosis. Multicentred study, Sweden. Cross-sectional, enrolling patients with consecutive STEMI admitted within 24 h from admission. We included 109 women and 336 men (mean age 66±11 years). Although 83% arrived by ambulance to the hospital, just half of the patients (51%) called EMS as their FMC. Other utilised SHD (21%), contacted their primary healthcare centre (14%), or went directly to the emergency room (14%). Reasons for not contacting EMS were predominantly; (1) my transport mode was faster (40%), (2) did not consider myself sick enough (30%), and (3) it was easier to be driven or taking a taxi (25%). Predictors associated with contacting SHD as FMC were female gender (OR 1.92), higher education (OR 2.40), history of diabetes (OR 2.10), pain in throat/neck (OR 2.24) and pain intensity (OR 0.85). Predictors associated with contacting EMS as FMC were history of MI (OR 2.18), atrial fibrillation (OR 3.81), abdominal pain (OR 0.35) and believing the symptoms originating from the heart (OR 1.60). Symptom onset to diagnosis time was significantly longer when turning to the SHD instead of the EMS as FMC (1:59 vs 1:21 h, p<0.001). Using other forms of contacts than EMS, significantly prolong delay times, and could adversely affect patient prognosis. Nevertheless, having the opportunity to call the SHD might also, in some instances, lower the threshold for taking contact with the healthcare system, and thus lowers the number that would otherwise have delayed even longer.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Portugal 1 1%
Sweden 1 1%
Unknown 90 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 12%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 9%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 28 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 14%
Mathematics 3 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 31 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 27 August 2018.
All research outputs
#5,539,318
of 22,807,037 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#9,296
of 22,530 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,875
of 265,343 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#155
of 340 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,807,037 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,530 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 265,343 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 340 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.