↓ Skip to main content

Ambulatory and diary methods can facilitate the measurement of patient-reported outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in Quality of Life Research, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 Mendeley
Title
Ambulatory and diary methods can facilitate the measurement of patient-reported outcomes
Published in
Quality of Life Research, June 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11136-015-1054-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stefan Schneider, Arthur A. Stone

Abstract

Ambulatory and diary methods of self-reported symptoms and well-being have received increasing interest in recent years. These methods are a valuable addition to traditional strategies for the assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in that they capture patients' recent symptom experiences repeatedly in their natural environments. In this article, we review ways that incorporating diary methods into PRO measurement can facilitate research on quality of life. Several diary methods are currently available, and they include "real-time" (Ecological Momentary Assessment) and "near-real-time" (end-of-day assessments, Day Reconstruction Method) formats. We identify the key benefits of these methods for PRO research. (1) In validity testing, diary assessments can serve as a standard for evaluating the ecological validity and for identifying recall biases of PRO instruments with longer-term recall formats. (2) In research and clinical settings, diaries have the ability to closely capture variations and dynamic changes in quality of life that are difficult or not possible to obtain from traditional PRO assessments. (3) In test construction, repeated diary assessments can expand understanding of the measurement characteristics (e.g., reliability, dimensionality) of PROs in that parameters for differences between people can be compared with those for variation within people. Diary assessment strategies can enrich the repertoire of PRO assessment tools and enhance the measurement of patients' quality of life.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 91 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 19%
Student > Master 13 14%
Researcher 11 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 10%
Other 5 5%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 25 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 28 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 15%
Social Sciences 9 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Neuroscience 2 2%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 29 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 April 2021.
All research outputs
#6,898,159
of 24,682,395 outputs
Outputs from Quality of Life Research
#693
of 3,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,958
of 269,023 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Quality of Life Research
#9
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,682,395 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,033 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 269,023 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.