↓ Skip to main content

Patient–Family Agenda Setting for Primary Care Patients with Cognitive Impairment: the SAME Page Trial

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, July 2018
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 (88th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
30 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
128 Mendeley
Title
Patient–Family Agenda Setting for Primary Care Patients with Cognitive Impairment: the SAME Page Trial
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, July 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11606-018-4563-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer L. Wolff, Debra L. Roter, Cynthia M. Boyd, David L. Roth, Diane M. Echavarria, Jennifer Aufill, Judith B. Vick, Laura N. Gitlin

Abstract

Establishing priorities for discussion during time-limited primary care visits is challenging in the care of patients with cognitive impairment. These patients commonly attend primary care visits with a family companion. To examine whether a patient-family agenda setting intervention improves primary care visit communication for patients with cognitive impairment DESIGN: Two-group pilot randomized controlled study PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 65 + with cognitive impairment and family companions (n = 93 dyads) and clinicians (n = 14) from two general and one geriatrics primary care clinic INTERVENTION: A self-administered paper-pencil checklist to clarify the role of the companion and establish a shared visit agenda MEASUREMENTS: Patient-centered communication (primary); verbal activity, information disclosure including discussion of memory, and visit duration (secondary), from audio recordings of visit discussion RESULTS: Dyads were randomized to usual care (n = 44) or intervention (n = 49). Intervention participants endorsed an active communication role for companions to help patients understand what the clinician says or means (90% of dyads), remind patients to ask questions or ask clinicians questions directly (84% of dyads), or listen and take notes (82% of dyads). Intervention dyads identified 4.4 health issues for the agenda on average: patients more often identified memory (59.2 versus 38.8%; p = 0.012) and mood (42.9 versus 24.5%; p = 0.013) whereas companions more often identified safety (36.7 versus 18.4%; p = 0.039) and personality/behavior change (32.7 versus 16.3%; p = 0.011). Communication was significantly more patient-centered in intervention than in control visits at general clinics (p < 0.001) and in pooled analyses (ratio of 0.86 versus 0.68; p = 0.046). At general clinics, intervention (versus control) dyads contributed more lifestyle and psychosocial talk (p < 0.001) and less biomedical talk (p < 0.001) and companions were more verbally active (p < 0.005). No intervention effects were found at the geriatrics clinic. No effect on memory discussions or visit duration was observed. Patient-family agenda setting may improve primary care visit communication for patients with cognitive impairment. ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT02986958.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 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 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 128 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 14%
Student > Bachelor 16 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 11%
Student > Master 11 9%
Lecturer 6 5%
Other 21 16%
Unknown 42 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 4%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Psychology 4 3%
Other 22 17%
Unknown 44 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 30 October 2018.
All research outputs
#1,741,265
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1,366
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,189
of 332,251 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#29
of 133 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 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 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 332,251 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 133 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.