↓ Skip to main content

Eliciting the Patient’s Agenda- Secondary Analysis of Recorded Clinical Encounters

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#4 of 8,251)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
129 news outlets
blogs
8 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
457 X users
facebook
10 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
181 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
249 Mendeley
Title
Eliciting the Patient’s Agenda- Secondary Analysis of Recorded Clinical Encounters
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, July 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11606-018-4540-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Naykky Singh Ospina, Kari A. Phillips, Rene Rodriguez-Gutierrez, Ana Castaneda-Guarderas, Michael R. Gionfriddo, Megan E. Branda, Victor M. Montori

Abstract

Eliciting patient concerns and listening carefully to them contributes to patient-centered care. Yet, clinicians often fail to elicit the patient's agenda and, when they do, they interrupt the patient's discourse. We aimed to describe the extent to which patients' concerns are elicited across different clinical settings and how shared decision-making tools impact agenda elicitation. We performed a secondary analysis of a random sample of 112 clinical encounters recorded during trials testing the efficacy of shared decision-making tools. Two reviewers, working independently, characterized the elicitation of the patient agenda and the time to interruption or to complete statement; we analyzed the distribution of agenda elicitation according to setting and use of shared decision-making tools. Clinicians elicited the patient's agenda in 40 of 112 (36%) encounters. Agendas were elicited more often in primary care (30/61 encounters, 49%) than in specialty care (10/51 encounters, 20%); p = .058. Shared decision-making tools did not affect the likelihood of eliciting the patient's agenda (34 vs. 37% in encounters with and without these tools; p = .09). In 27 of the 40 (67%) encounters in which clinicians elicited patient concerns, the clinician interrupted the patient after a median of 11 seconds (interquartile range 7-22; range 3 to 234 s). Uninterrupted patients took a median of 6 s (interquartile range 3-19; range 2 to 108 s) to state their concern. Clinicians seldom elicit the patient's agenda; when they do, they interrupt patients sooner than previously reported. Physicians in specialty care elicited the patient's agenda less often compared to physicians in primary care. Failure to elicit the patient's agenda reduces the chance that clinicians will orient the priorities of a clinical encounter toward specific aspects that matter to each patient.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 457 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 249 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 249 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 30 12%
Student > Master 30 12%
Student > Bachelor 29 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 9%
Researcher 21 8%
Other 57 23%
Unknown 60 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 65 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 37 15%
Social Sciences 14 6%
Psychology 10 4%
Engineering 5 2%
Other 38 15%
Unknown 80 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1376. 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 23 March 2024.
All research outputs
#9,358
of 25,760,414 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#4
of 8,251 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162
of 342,650 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1
of 141 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,760,414 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,251 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 342,650 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 141 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 99% of its contemporaries.