↓ Skip to main content

The gap between policy and practice: a systematic review of patient-centred care interventions in chronic heart failure

Overview of attention for article published in Heart Failure Reviews, October 2015
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 (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
14 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
210 Mendeley
Title
The gap between policy and practice: a systematic review of patient-centred care interventions in chronic heart failure
Published in
Heart Failure Reviews, October 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10741-015-9508-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

P. M. Kane, F. E. M. Murtagh, K. Ryan, N. G. Mahon, B. McAdam, R. McQuillan, C. Ellis-Smith, C. Tracey, C. Howley, C. Raleigh, G. O’Gara, I. J. Higginson, B. A. Daveson

Abstract

Patient-centred care (PCC) is recommended in policy documents for chronic heart failure (CHF) service provision, yet it lacks an agreed definition. A systematic review was conducted to identify PCC interventions in CHF and to describe the PCC domains and outcomes. Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ASSIA, the Cochrane database, clinicaltrials.gov, key journals and citations were searched for original studies on patients with CHF staged II-IV using the New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification. Included interventions actively supported patients to play informed, active roles in decision-making about their goals of care. Search terms included 'patient-centred care', 'quality of life' and 'shared decision making'. Of 13,944 screened citations, 15 articles regarding 10 studies were included involving 2540 CHF patients. Three studies were randomised controlled trials, and seven were non-randomised studies. PCC interventions focused on collaborative goal setting between patients and healthcare professionals regarding immediate clinical choices and future care. Core domains included healthcare professional-patient collaboration, identification of patient preferences, patient-identified goals and patient motivation. While the strength of evidence is poor, PCC has been shown to reduce symptom burden, improve health-related quality of life, reduce readmission rates and enhance patient engagement for patients with CHF. There is a small but growing body of evidence, which demonstrates the benefits of a PCC approach to care for CHF patients. Research is needed to identify the key components of effective PCC interventions before being able to deliver on policy recommendations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 210 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Unknown 207 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 42 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 15%
Researcher 22 10%
Student > Bachelor 15 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 6%
Other 45 21%
Unknown 42 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 59 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 43 20%
Psychology 18 9%
Social Sciences 11 5%
Unspecified 11 5%
Other 21 10%
Unknown 47 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 31 December 2022.
All research outputs
#3,055,744
of 25,081,505 outputs
Outputs from Heart Failure Reviews
#87
of 746 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,179
of 283,656 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Heart Failure Reviews
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,081,505 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 746 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 283,656 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.