↓ Skip to main content

Experienced continuity of care in patients at risk for depression in primary care

Overview of attention for article published in The European Journal of General Practice, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
Experienced continuity of care in patients at risk for depression in primary care
Published in
The European Journal of General Practice, September 2013
DOI 10.3109/13814788.2013.828201
Pubmed ID
Authors

Annemarie A. Uijen, Henk J. Schers, Aart H. Schene, Francois G. Schellevis, Peter Lucassen, Wil J. H. M. van den Bosch

Abstract

Background: Existing studies about continuity of care focus on patients with a severe mental illness. Objective: Explore the level of experienced continuity of care of patients at risk for depression in primary care, and compare these to those of patients with heart failure. Methods: Explorative study comparing patients at risk for depression with chronic heart failure patients. Continuity of care was measured using a patient questionnaire and defined as ( 1 ) number of care providers contacted (personal continuity); ( 2 ) collaboration between care providers in general practice (team continuity) (six items, score 1-5); and ( 3 ) collaboration between GPs and care providers outside general practice (cross-boundary continuity) (four items, score 1-5). Results: Most patients at risk for depression contacted several care providers throughout the care spectrum in the past year. They experienced high team continuity and low cross-boundary continuity. In their general practice, they contacted more different care providers for their illness than heart failure patients did (P < 0.01). Patients at risk for depression experienced a slightly better collaboration between these care providers in their practice: a mean score of 4.3 per item compared to 4.0 for heart failure patients (P = 0.03). The perceived cross-boundary continuity, however, was reversed: a mean score of 3.5 per item for patients at risk for depression, compared to 4.0 for heart failure patients (P = 0.01). Conclusion: The explorative comparison between patients at risk for depression and heart failure patients shows small differences in experienced continuity of care. This should be analysed further in a more robust study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 19%
Student > Bachelor 5 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Student > Master 3 8%
Unspecified 2 6%
Other 7 19%
Unknown 8 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 22%
Psychology 6 17%
Social Sciences 3 8%
Unspecified 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Other 7 19%
Unknown 8 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 19 September 2013.
All research outputs
#17,283,763
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from The European Journal of General Practice
#463
of 595 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,388
of 210,196 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The European Journal of General Practice
#11
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 595 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 210,196 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.