↓ Skip to main content

A Model of Organizational Context and Shared Decision Making: Application to LGBT Racial and Ethnic Minority Patients

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, 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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
8 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
221 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
A Model of Organizational Context and Shared Decision Making: Application to LGBT Racial and Ethnic Minority Patients
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11606-016-3608-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachel H. DeMeester, Fanny Y. Lopez, Jennifer E. Moore, Scott C. Cook, Marshall H. Chin

Abstract

Shared decision making (SDM) occurs when patients and clinicians work together to reach care decisions that are both medically sound and responsive to patients' preferences and values. SDM is an important tenet of patient-centered care that can improve patient outcomes. Patients with multiple minority identities, such as sexual orientation and race/ethnicity, are at particular risk for poor SDM. Among these dual-minority patients, added challenges to clear and open communication include cultural barriers, distrust, and a health care provider's lack of awareness of the patient's minority sexual orientation or gender identity. However, organizational factors like a culture of inclusion and private space throughout the visit can improve SDM with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender ("LGBT") racial/ethnic minority patients who have faced stigma and discrimination. Most models of shared decision making focus on the patient-provider interaction, but the health care organization's context is also critical. Context-an organization's structure and operations-can strongly influence the ability and willingness of patients and clinicians to engage in shared decision making. SDM is most likely to be optimal if organizations transform their contexts and patients and providers improve their communication. Thus, we propose a conceptual model that suggests ways in which organizations can shape their contextual structure and operations to support SDM. The model contains six drivers: workflows, health information technology, organizational structure and culture, resources and clinic environment, training and education, and incentives and disincentives. These drivers work through four mechanisms to impact care: continuity and coordination, the ease of SDM, knowledge and skills, and attitudes and beliefs. These mechanisms can activate clinicians and patients to engage in high-quality SDM. We provide examples of how specific contextual changes could make SDM more effective for LGBT racial/ethnic minority populations, focusing especially on transformations that would establish a safe environment, build trust, and decrease stigma.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 221 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 220 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 37 17%
Student > Bachelor 25 11%
Researcher 23 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 23 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 10%
Other 41 19%
Unknown 51 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 18%
Social Sciences 33 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 14%
Psychology 23 10%
Computer Science 4 2%
Other 26 12%
Unknown 65 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 68. 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 29 August 2020.
All research outputs
#576,033
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#467
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,695
of 330,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#10
of 127 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 330,757 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 127 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 92% of its contemporaries.