| Title |
Official definitions for undesirable medical events
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Acta Medica Austriaca, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00508-018-1362-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christian Smolle, Gerald Sendlhofer, Janos Cambiaso-Daniel, Michaela Sljivich, Herwig Friedl, Lars-Peter Kamolz, Gernot Brunner |
| Abstract |
In Austria, elaborate definitions exist for the undesirable medical events side effect, adverse event, complication and medical malpractice. We aimed at investigating whether the official definitions for the abovementioned terms can be understood by a sample population representing a cross-section of the Austrian population. In this study 1021 Austrian citizens were interviewed. Demographic parameters (age, gender, occupation, level of education, monthly income, number of inhabitants at place of residence) were assessed. Participants were told the official definitions for complication, side effect, adverse event and medical malpractice and asked to select the correct definition for "complication". The impact of sample characteristics on the ability to identify the correct definition was investigated. Of the participants 315 (31%) identified the correct definition of a complication. Almost the same number (n = 302, 30%; χ2 for single samples: p = 0.087) falsely selected the definition for side effect. Significantly fewer (both p < 0.001) chose the definitions for adverse event (n = 220, 22%) and medical malpractice (n = 155, 15%). Only the respective state of origin showed significant influence on the probability of choosing the correct definition out of the four. The probability was highest in Vorarlberg (0.400) and lowest in Upper Austria (0.216, p < 0.001). For the majority the present official definitions for undesirable medical events are too complex to understand. Simple definitions for undesirable medical events should be included into patient education. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 23 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 13% |
| Researcher | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 10 | 43% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 26% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 9% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 4% |
| Psychology | 1 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 10 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 14 July 2018.
All research outputs
#22,767,715
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Acta Medica Austriaca
#836
of 967 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#297,561
of 339,415 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Acta Medica Austriaca
#11
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 967 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 339,415 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.