↓ Skip to main content

Conceptualising patient empowerment: a mixed methods study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, July 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 (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
14 X users
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
273 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
592 Mendeley
Title
Conceptualising patient empowerment: a mixed methods study
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-0907-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paulina Bravo, Adrian Edwards, Paul James Barr, Isabelle Scholl, Glyn Elwyn, Marion McAllister, the Cochrane Healthcare Quality Research Group, Cardiff University

Abstract

In recent years, interventions and health policy programmes have been established to promote patient empowerment, with a particular focus on patients affected by long-term conditions. However, a clear definition of patient empowerment is lacking, making it difficult to assess effectiveness of interventions designed to promote it. The aim in this study was to develop a conceptual map of patient empowerment, including components of patient empowerment and relationships with other constructs such as health literacy, self-management and shared decision-making. A mixed methods study was conducted comprising (i) a scoping literature review to identify and map the components underpinning published definitions of patient empowerment (ii) qualitative interviews with key stakeholders (patients, patient representatives, health managers and health service researchers) to further develop the conceptual map. Data were analysed using qualitative methods. A combination of thematic and framework analysis was used to integrate and map themes underpinning published definitions of patient empowerment with the views of key UK stakeholders. The scoping literature review identified 67 articles that included a definition of patient empowerment. A range of diverse definitions of patient empowerment was extracted. Thematic analysis identified key underpinning themes, and these themes were used to develop an initial coding framework for analysis of interview data. 19 semi-structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders. Transcripts were analysed using the initial coding framework, and findings were used to further develop the conceptual map. The resulting conceptual map describes that patient empowerment can be conceived as a state ranging across a spectrum from low to high levels of patient empowerment, with the level of patient empowerment potentially measurable using a set of indicators. Five key components of the conceptual map were identified: underpinning ethos, moderators, interventions, indicators and outcomes. Relationships with other constructs such as health literacy, self-management and shared decision-making are illustrated in the conceptual map. A novel conceptual map of patient empowerment grounded in published definitions of patient empowerment and qualitative interviews with UK stakeholders is described, that may be useful to healthcare providers and researchers designing, implementing and evaluating interventions to promote patient empowerment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 592 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Vietnam 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 585 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 96 16%
Researcher 74 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 63 11%
Student > Bachelor 53 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 37 6%
Other 125 21%
Unknown 144 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 118 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 92 16%
Social Sciences 58 10%
Psychology 45 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 28 5%
Other 90 15%
Unknown 161 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 19 May 2022.
All research outputs
#1,724,533
of 25,773,273 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#579
of 8,762 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,838
of 278,336 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#9
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,773,273 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,762 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 278,336 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.