↓ Skip to main content

Patient and Caregiver Priorities for Outcomes in Hemodialysis: An International Nominal Group Technique Study

Overview of attention for article published in American Journal of Kidney Diseases, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
13 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
233 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
258 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 and Caregiver Priorities for Outcomes in Hemodialysis: An International Nominal Group Technique Study
Published in
American Journal of Kidney Diseases, March 2016
DOI 10.1053/j.ajkd.2016.02.037
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachel Urquhart-Secord, Jonathan C. Craig, Brenda Hemmelgarn, Helen Tam-Tham, Braden Manns, Martin Howell, Kevan R. Polkinghorne, Peter G. Kerr, David C. Harris, Stephanie Thompson, Kara Schick-Makaroff, David C. Wheeler, Wim van Biesen, Wolfgang C. Winkelmayer, David W. Johnson, Kirsten Howard, Nicole Evangelidis, Allison Tong

Abstract

In the context of clinical research, investigators have historically selected the outcomes that they consider to be important, but these are often discordant with patients' priorities. Efforts to define and report patient-centered outcomes are gaining momentum, though little work has been done in nephrology. We aimed to identify patient and caregiver priorities for outcomes in hemodialysis. Nominal group technique. Patients on hemodialysis therapy and their caregivers were purposively sampled from 4 dialysis units in Australia (Sydney and Melbourne) and 7 dialysis units in Canada (Calgary). Identification and ranking of outcomes. Mean rank score (of 10) for top 10 outcomes and thematic analysis. 82 participants (58 patients, 24 caregivers) aged 24 to 87 (mean, 58.4) years in 12 nominal groups identified 68 outcomes. The 10 top-ranked outcomes were fatigue/energy (mean rank score, 4.5), survival (defined by patients as resilience and coping; 3.7), ability to travel (3.6), dialysis-free time (3.3), impact on family (3.2), ability to work (2.5), sleep (2.3), anxiety/stress (2.1), decrease in blood pressure (2.0), and lack of appetite/taste (1.9). Mortality ranked only 14th and was not regarded as the complement of survival. Caregivers ranked mortality, anxiety, and depression higher than patients, whereas patients ranked ability to work higher. Four themes underpinned their rankings: living well, ability to control outcomes, tangible and experiential relevance, and severity and intrusiveness. Only English-speaking participants were eligible. Although trials in hemodialysis have typically focused on outcomes such as death, adverse events, and biological markers, patients tend to prioritize outcomes that are more relevant to their daily living and well-being. Researchers need to consider interventions that are likely to improve these outcomes and measure and report patient-relevant outcomes in trials, and clinicians may become more patient-orientated by using these outcomes in their clinical encounters.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 258 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 258 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 14%
Student > Master 36 14%
Student > Bachelor 25 10%
Researcher 24 9%
Other 16 6%
Other 44 17%
Unknown 77 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 62 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 40 16%
Psychology 24 9%
Social Sciences 12 5%
Neuroscience 5 2%
Other 29 11%
Unknown 86 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 38. 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 08 November 2021.
All research outputs
#1,062,860
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Kidney Diseases
#463
of 5,429 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,118
of 313,893 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Kidney Diseases
#3
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,429 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 313,893 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 76 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.