↓ Skip to main content

Patient‐reported outcomes in the Swedish National Quality Registers

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Internal Medicine, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
102 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
191 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Patient‐reported outcomes in the Swedish National Quality Registers
Published in
Journal of Internal Medicine, August 2015
DOI 10.1111/joim.12409
Pubmed ID
Authors

E Nilsson, L Orwelius, M Kristenson

Abstract

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are important in the healthcare system to gain understanding of patients' views on the effects of a treatment. There is an abundance of available patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), both disease specific and generic. In the Swedish healthcare system, the national quality registers are obliged to incorporate PROs for certification at a high level. A review of the latest annual applications for funding (n = 108) shows that at present, 93 national quality registers include some form of PROM or patient-reported experience measure (PREM). Half of the registers include some type of generic measure, more than half include disease/symptom-specific measures, and around 40% include PREMs. Several different measures and combinations of measures are used, the most common of which are the EQ-5D, followed by the SF-36/RAND-36. About one-fifth of the registers report examples of how patient-reported data are used for local quality improvement. These examples include enhancing shared decision-making in clinical encounters (most common), as a basis for care plans, clinical decision aids and treatment guidelines, to improve the precision of indications for surgery (patient and healthcare professional assessments may differ), to monitor complications after the patient has left hospital and to improve patient information. In addition, funding applications reveal that most registers plan to extend their array of PROMs and PREMs in future, and to increase their use of patient-reported data as a basis for quality improvement.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 191 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Unknown 189 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 25 13%
Student > Master 23 12%
Student > Bachelor 21 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 9%
Other 15 8%
Other 46 24%
Unknown 43 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 60 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 4%
Computer Science 7 4%
Social Sciences 7 4%
Other 30 16%
Unknown 55 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 April 2019.
All research outputs
#7,538,708
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Internal Medicine
#1,261
of 3,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,037
of 280,818 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Internal Medicine
#10
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,088 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 280,818 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.