↓ Skip to main content

E-Pub: 07/19/2017 Evaluation of a "Just-in-Time" Nurse Consultation on Bone Health: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

Overview of attention for article published in The Permanente Journal, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
105 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.
Article details
Title
E-Pub: 07/19/2017 Evaluation of a "Just-in-Time" Nurse Consultation on Bone Health: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Published in
The Permanente Journal, December 2017
DOI 10.7812/tpp/16-112
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Evidence is inconclusive whether a nurse consultation can improve osteoporosis-related patient outcomes. To evaluate whether a nurse consultation immediately after dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) produced better osteoporosis-related outcomes than a simple intervention to activate adults in good bone health practices or usual care. Pilot randomized controlled trial, conducted within the larger Patient Activation After DXA Result Notification (PAADRN) trial (NCT01507662). After DXA, consenting adults age 50 years or older were randomly assigned to 3 groups: nurse consultation, PAADRN intervention (mailed letter with individualized fracture risk and an educational brochure), or usual care (control). Nurse consultation included reviewing DXA results, counseling on bone health, and ordering needed follow-up tests or physician referrals. Change from baseline to 52 weeks in participant-reported osteoporosis-related pharmacotherapy, lifestyle, activation and self-efficacy, and osteoporosis care satisfaction. Nurse consultation participants (n = 104) reported 52-week improvements in strengthening and weight-bearing exercise (p = 0.09), calcium intake (p < 0.01), osteoporosis knowledge (p = 0.04), activation (p < 0.01), dietary self-efficacy (p = 0.06), and osteoporosis care satisfaction (p < 0.01). Compared with PAADRN intervention participants (n = 39), nurse consultation participants had improved dietary self-efficacy (p = 0.07) and osteoporosis care satisfaction (p = 0.05). No significant improvements in osteoporosis-related outcomes were achieved vs PAADRN controls (n = 70). "Just-in-time" nurse consultation yielded a few improvements over 52 weeks in osteoporosis-related outcomes; however, most changes were not different from those obtained through the lower-cost PAADRN intervention or usual care.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 105 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 12%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Other 5 5%
Professor 5 5%
Researcher 5 5%
Other 12 11%
Unknown 54 51%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 18 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 13%
Psychology 6 6%
Sports and Recreations 6 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 46 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 22 December 2017.
All research outputs
#18,577,645
of 27,788,586 outputs
Outputs from The Permanente Journal
#660
of 1,129 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#277,521
of 453,320 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Permanente Journal
#18
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,788,586 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,129 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.8. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 453,320 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.