| Title |
Designing an implementation strategy to improve interprofessional shared decision making in sciatica: study protocol of the DISC study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, June 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1748-5908-7-55 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stefanie N Hofstede, Perla J Marang-van de Mheen, Willem JJ Assendelft, Carmen LA Vleggeert-Lankamp, Anne M Stiggelbout, Patrick CAJ Vroomen, Wilbert B van den Hout, Thea PM Vliet Vlieland, Leti van Bodegom-Vos, for the DISC study group |
| Abstract |
Sciatica is a common condition worldwide that is characterized by radiating leg pain and regularly caused by a herniated disc with nerve root compression. Sciatica patients with persisting leg pain after six to eight weeks were found to have similar clinical outcomes and associated costs after prolonged conservative treatment or surgery at one year follow-up. Guidelines recommend that the team of professionals involved in sciatica care and patients jointly decide about treatment options, so-called interprofessional shared decision making (SDM). However, there are strong indications that SDM for sciatica patients is not integrated in daily practice. We designed a study aiming to explore the barriers and facilitators associated with the everyday embedding of SDM for sciatica patients. All related relevant professionals and patients are involved to develop a tailored strategy to implement SDM for sciatica patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 17% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 17% |
| Comoros | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 83% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 3% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Portugal | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 93 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 18 | 18% |
| Researcher | 14 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 7% |
| Professor | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 24 | 24% |
| Unknown | 18 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 37 | 37% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 14 | 14% |
| Psychology | 6 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 5% |
| Unknown | 21 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 04 August 2012.
All research outputs
#7,414,160
of 22,668,244 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,242
of 1,717 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,813
of 166,052 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#23
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,668,244 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,717 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 166,052 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.