| Title |
Implementing patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice: a review of the options and considerations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Quality of Life Research, November 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11136-011-0054-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Claire F. Snyder, Neil K. Aaronson, Ali K. Choucair, Thomas E. Elliott, Joanne Greenhalgh, Michele Y. Halyard, Rachel Hess, Deborah M. Miller, Bryce B. Reeve, Maria Santana |
| Abstract |
While clinical care is frequently directed at making patients "feel better," patients' reports on their functioning and well-being (patient-reported outcomes [PROs]) are rarely collected in routine clinical practice. The International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) has developed a User's Guide for Implementing Patient-Reported Outcomes Assessment in Clinical Practice. This paper summarizes the key issues from the User's Guide. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 38% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 13% |
| Belgium | 1 | 13% |
| Italy | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 2 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 63% |
| Scientists | 2 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 419 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 4 | <1% |
| United States | 3 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Finland | 2 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 405 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 76 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 58 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 50 | 12% |
| Other | 34 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 33 | 8% |
| Other | 96 | 23% |
| Unknown | 72 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 150 | 36% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 45 | 11% |
| Psychology | 31 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 30 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 2% |
| Other | 58 | 14% |
| Unknown | 96 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 01 February 2019.
All research outputs
#1,747,143
of 22,656,971 outputs
Outputs from Quality of Life Research
#98
of 2,839 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,116
of 141,801 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Quality of Life Research
#2
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,656,971 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,839 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 141,801 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 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 90% of its contemporaries.