↓ Skip to main content

Coaching patients in the use of decision and communication aids: RE-AIM evaluation of a patient support program

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, May 2015
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 (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
Title
Coaching patients in the use of decision and communication aids: RE-AIM evaluation of a patient support program
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-0872-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeff Belkora, Shelley Volz, Meredith Loth, Alexandra Teng, Margot Zarin-Pass, Dan Moore, Laura Esserman

Abstract

Decision aids educate patients about treatment options and outcomes. Communication aids include question lists, consultation summaries, and audio-recordings. In efficacy studies, decision aids increased patient knowledge, while communication aids increased patient question-asking and information recall. Starting in 2004, we trained successive cohorts of post-baccalaureate, pre-medical interns to coach patients in the use of decision and communication aids at our university-based breast cancer clinic. From July 2005 through June 2012, we used the RE-AIM framework to measure Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance of our interventions. 1. Reach: Over the study period, our program sent a total of 5,153 decision aids and directly administered 2,004 communication aids. In the most recent program year (2012), out of 1,524 eligible patient appointments, we successfully contacted 1,212 (80 %); coached 1,110 (73 %) in the self-administered use of decision and communication aids; sent 958 (63 %) decision aids; and directly administered communication aids for 419 (27 %) patients. In a 2010 survey, coached patients reported self-administering one or more communication aids in 81 % of visits 2. Effectiveness: In our pre-post comparisons, decision aids were associated with increased patient knowledge and decreased decisional conflict. Communication aids were associated with increased self-efficacy and number of questions; and with high ratings of patient preparedness and satisfaction 3. Adoption: Among visitors sent decision aids, 82 % of survey respondents reviewed some or all; among those administered communication aids, 86 % reviewed one or more after the visit 4. Through continuous quality adaptations, we increased the proportion of available staff time used for patient support (i.e. exploitation of workforce capacity) from 29 % in 2005 to 84 % in 2012 5. Maintenance: The main barrier to sustainability was the cost of paid intern labor. We addressed this by testing a service learning model in which student interns work as program coaches in exchange for academic credit rather than salary. The feasibility test succeeded, and we are now expanding the use of unpaid interns. We have sustained a clinic-wide implementation of decision and communication aids through a novel staffing model that uses paid and unpaid student interns as coaches.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 13%
Researcher 4 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 6%
Librarian 2 4%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 31 65%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Psychology 3 6%
Engineering 2 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 31 65%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 05 April 2018.
All research outputs
#2,266,954
of 22,807,037 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#915
of 7,632 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,893
of 266,679 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#15
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,807,037 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,632 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 266,679 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 97 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.