↓ Skip to main content

Using a patient decision aid for insulin initiation in patients with type 2 diabetes: a qualitative analysis of doctor–patient conversations in primary care consultations in Malaysia

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 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
Using a patient decision aid for insulin initiation in patients with type 2 diabetes: a qualitative analysis of doctor–patient conversations in primary care consultations in Malaysia
Published in
BMJ Open, May 2017
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014260
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ayeshah Syed, Zuraidah Mohd Don, Chirk Jenn Ng, Yew Kong Lee, Ee Ming Khoo, Ping Yein Lee, Khatijah Lim Abdullah, Azlin Zainal

Abstract

To investigate whether the use of apatient decision aid (PDA) for insulin initiation fulfils its purpose of facilitating patient-centred decision-making through identifying how doctors and patients interact when using the PDA during primary care consultations. Conversation analysis of seven single cases of audio-recorded/video-recorded consultations between doctors and patients with type 2 diabetes, using a PDA on starting insulin. Primary care in three healthcare settings: (1) one private clinic; (2) two public community clinics and (3) one primary care clinic in a public university hospital, in Negeri Sembilan and the Klang Valley in Malaysia. Clinicians and seven patients with type 2 diabetes to whom insulin had been recommended. Purposive sampling was used to select a sample high in variance across healthcare settings, participant demographics and perspectives on insulin. Interaction between doctors and patients in a clinical consultation involving the use of a PDA about starting insulin. Doctors brought the PDA into the conversation mainly by asking information-focused 'yes/no' questions, and used the PDA for information exchange only if patients said they had not read it. While their contributions were limited by doctors' questions, some patients disclosed issues or concerns. Although doctors' PDA-related questions acted as a presequence to deliberation on starting insulin, their interactional practices raised questions on whether patients were informed and their preferences prioritised. Interactional practices can hinder effective PDA implementation, with habits from ordinary conversation potentially influencing doctors' practices and complicating their implementation of patient-centred decision-making. Effective interaction should therefore be emphasised in the design and delivery of PDAs and in training clinicians to use them.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 88 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 21 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 11%
Student > Master 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Researcher 6 7%
Other 18 20%
Unknown 16 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 21 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 13%
Social Sciences 8 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 20 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 02 July 2017.
All research outputs
#7,208,166
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#11,904
of 25,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,685
of 325,039 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#224
of 458 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,593 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 325,039 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 458 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 50% of its contemporaries.