| Title |
“Knowing is Better”: Preferences of Diverse Older Adults for Discussing Prognosis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, November 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11606-011-1933-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cyrus Ahalt, Louise C. Walter, Lindsey Yourman, Catherine Eng, Eliseo J. Pérez-Stable, Alexander K. Smith |
| Abstract |
Prognosis is critical in individualizing care for older adults with late life disability. Evidence suggests that preferences for prognostic information may be culturally determined. Yet little is known about the preferences of diverse elders for discussing prognosis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 25% |
| United States | 2 | 25% |
| France | 1 | 13% |
| Brazil | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 2 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 50% |
| Scientists | 3 | 38% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 88 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 12% |
| Other | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 25 | 28% |
| Unknown | 13 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 37 | 41% |
| Psychology | 11 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 7% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Unknown | 15 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 25 October 2015.
All research outputs
#2,210,310
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1,682
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,344
of 246,032 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#7
of 35 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 90th 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 78% 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 246,032 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.