| Title |
The Opportunities and Challenges for Shared Decision-Making in the Rural United States
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
HEC Forum, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10730-015-9283-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
William A. Nelson, Paul J. Barr, Mary G. Castaldo |
| Abstract |
The ethical standard for informed consent is fostered within a shared decision-making (SDM) process. SDM has become a recognized and needed approach in health care decision-making. Based on an ethical foundation, the approach fosters the active engagement of patients, where the clinician presents evidence-based treatment information and options and openly elicits the patient's values and preferences. The SDM process is affected by the context in which the information exchange occurs. Rural settings are one context that impacts the delivery of health care and SDM. Rural health care is significantly influenced by economic, geographical and social characteristics. Several specific distinctive features influence rural health care decision-making-poverty, access to health care, isolation, over-lapping relationships, and a shared culture. The rural context creates challenges as well as fosters opportunities for the application of SDM as a natural dynamic within the rural provider-patient relationship. To fulfill the ethical requirements of informed consent through SDM, it is necessary to understand its inherent challenges and opportunities. Therefore, rural clinicians and ethicists need to be cognizant of the impact of the rural setting on SDM and use the insights as an opportunity to achieve SDM. |
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% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 39 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 23% |
| Researcher | 7 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 10 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 23% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 13% |
| Psychology | 4 | 10% |
| Philosophy | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 9 | 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 06 June 2015.
All research outputs
#17,760,015
of 22,808,725 outputs
Outputs from HEC Forum
#155
of 184 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,895
of 266,726 outputs
Outputs of similar age from HEC Forum
#4
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,808,725 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 184 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 266,726 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.