↓ Skip to main content

Patients' willingness and ability to participate actively in the reduction of clinical errors: A systematic literature review

Overview of attention for article published in Social Science & Medicine, April 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
8 X users

Readers on

mendeley
220 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
Patients' willingness and ability to participate actively in the reduction of clinical errors: A systematic literature review
Published in
Social Science & Medicine, April 2012
DOI 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.02.056
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

This systematic review identifies the factors that both support and deter patients from being willing and able to participate actively in reducing clinical errors. Specifically, we add to our understanding of the safety culture in healthcare by engaging with the call for more focus on the relational and subjective factors which enable patients' participation (Iedema, Jorm, & Lum, 2009; Ovretveit, 2009). A systematic search of six databases, ten journals and seven healthcare organisations' web sites resulted in the identification of 2714 studies of which 68 were included in the review. These studies investigated initiatives involving patients in safety or studies of patients' perspectives of being actively involved in the safety of their care. The factors explored varied considerably depending on the scope, setting and context of the study. Using thematic analysis we synthesized the data to build an explanation of why, when and how patients are likely to engage actively in helping to reduce clinical errors. The findings show that the main factors for engaging patients in their own safety can be summarised in four categories: illness; individual cognitive characteristics; the clinician-patient relationship; and organisational factors. We conclude that illness and patients' perceptions of their role and status as subordinate to that of clinicians are the most important barriers to their involvement in error reduction. In sum, patients' fear of being labelled "difficult" and a consequent desire for clinicians' approbation may cause them to assume a passive role as a means of actively protecting their personal safety.

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 8 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 220 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 %
United Kingdom 4 2%
United States 2 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 212 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 37 17%
Researcher 29 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 11%
Student > Bachelor 14 6%
Other 9 4%
Other 38 17%
Unknown 68 31%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 15%
Social Sciences 19 9%
Psychology 18 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 12 5%
Other 22 10%
Unknown 72 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 13 December 2016.
All research outputs
#4,101,535
of 32,572,863 outputs
Outputs from Social Science & Medicine
#3,767
of 13,441 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,835
of 200,676 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Social Science & Medicine
#46
of 144 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,572,863 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,441 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 200,676 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 144 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 68% of its contemporaries.