↓ Skip to main content

PPI in the PLEASANT trial: involving children with asthma and their parents in designing an intervention for a randomised controlled trial based within primary care

Overview of attention for article published in Primary Health Care Research & Development (Cambridge University Press / UK), February 2016
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 (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 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
PPI in the PLEASANT trial: involving children with asthma and their parents in designing an intervention for a randomised controlled trial based within primary care
Published in
Primary Health Care Research & Development (Cambridge University Press / UK), February 2016
DOI 10.1017/s1463423616000025
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonathan Boote, Steven Julious, Michelle Horspool, Heather Elphick, W. Henry Smithson, Paul Norman

Abstract

Aims We describe how patient and public involvement (PPI) was integrated into the design of an intervention for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) based within primary care. The RCT, known as the PLEASANT trial, aimed to reduce unscheduled medical contacts in children with asthma associated with start of the new school year in September with a simple postal intervention, highlighting the importance of maintaining asthma medication for helping to prevent increased asthma exacerbations. PPI is a key feature of UK health research policy, and is often a requirement of funding from the National Institute for Health Research. There are few detailed accounts of PPI in the design and conduct of clinical trials in the PPI literature for researchers to learn from. We held PPI consultation events to determine whether the proposed intervention for the trial was acceptable to children with asthma and their parents, and to ascertain whether enhancements should be made. Two PPI consultation events were held with children with asthma and their parents, prior to the research commencing. Detailed field notes were taken by the research team at each consultation event. Findings At the first consultation event, parents and children endorsed the trial's rationale, made suggestions to the wording of the trial intervention letter, and made recommendations about to whom the letter should be sent out. At the second consultation event, parents discussed the timing of the intervention, commented on the lay summary of the Research Ethics Application, and were invited to join the trial's steering committee, while the children selected a logo for the study. PPI has resulted in enhancements to the PLEASANT study's intervention. A further PPI consultation event is scheduled for the end of the trial, in order for children with asthma and their parents to contribute to the trial's dissemination strategy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 72 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 22%
Researcher 10 14%
Librarian 7 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Other 15 21%
Unknown 14 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 21%
Psychology 7 10%
Social Sciences 6 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 12 17%
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 05 December 2019.
All research outputs
#3,056,178
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Primary Health Care Research & Development (Cambridge University Press / UK)
#65
of 565 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,831
of 409,550 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Primary Health Care Research & Development (Cambridge University Press / UK)
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 565 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. 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 409,550 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them