↓ Skip to main content

Consumer involvement in ADPKD guidelines

Overview of attention for article published in Nephrology, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
151 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
Consumer involvement in ADPKD guidelines
Published in
Nephrology, January 2016
DOI 10.1111/nep.12579
Pubmed ID
Authors

Allison Tong, David J Tunnicliffe, Pamela Lopez-Vargas, Andrew Mallett, Chirag Patel, Judy Savige, Katrina Campbell, Manish Patel, Michel C Tchan, Stephen I Alexander, Vincent Lee, Jonathan C Craig, Robert Fassett, Gopala K Rangan

Abstract

This study aimed to identify consumer perspectives on topics and outcomes to integrate in the Kidney Health Australia Caring for Australasians with Renal Impairment (KHA-CARI) clinical practice guidelines on autosomal polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD). A workshop involving three concurrent focus groups with 18 consumers (patients with ADPKD [n=15], caregivers [n=3]) was convened. Guideline topics, interventions and outcomes were identified, and integrated into guideline development. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the reasons for their choices. Twenty-two priority topics were identified, with most focussed on non-pharmacological management (diet, fluid intake, physical activity, complementary medicine), pain management, and psychosocial care (mental health, counseling, cognitive and behavioural training, education, support groups). They also identified 26 outcomes including quality of life (QoL), progression of kidney disease, kidney function, cyst growth, and nephrotoxity. Almost all topics and outcomes suggested were identified by health professionals with the exception of five topics/outcomes. Six themes reflected reasons for their choices: clarifying ambiguities, resolving debilitating pain, concern for family, preparedness for the future, taking control, and significance of impact. Although there was considerable concordance between the priority topics and outcomes of health professionals and consumers for guidelines of ADPKD, there was also important discordance with consumers focused on fewer issues but particularly on lifestyle, psychosocial support, pain, and QoL and renal outcomes. Active consumer engagement in guidelines development can help to ensure the inclusion of patient-centred recommendations, which may lead to better management of disease progression, symptoms, complications, and psychosocial impact.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 151 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 150 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 11%
Student > Master 15 10%
Researcher 14 9%
Other 8 5%
Other 30 20%
Unknown 49 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 14%
Psychology 7 5%
Unspecified 7 5%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Other 19 13%
Unknown 59 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 12 February 2016.
All research outputs
#8,167,415
of 24,484,013 outputs
Outputs from Nephrology
#320
of 995 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#129,087
of 404,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nephrology
#4
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,484,013 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 995 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 404,296 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 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 57% of its contemporaries.