↓ Skip to main content

Refinement of the Long-Term Conditions Questionnaire (LTCQ): patient and expert stakeholder opinion

Overview of attention for article published in Patient related outcome measures, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 Mendeley
Title
Refinement of the Long-Term Conditions Questionnaire (LTCQ): patient and expert stakeholder opinion
Published in
Patient related outcome measures, November 2016
DOI 10.2147/prom.s116987
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laura Kelly, Caroline M Potter, Cheryl Hunter, Elizabeth Gibbons, Ray Fitzpatrick, Crispin Jenkinson, Michele Peters

Abstract

It is a key UK government priority to assess and improve outcomes in people with long-term conditions (LTCs). We are developing a new patient-reported outcome measure, the Long-Term Conditions Questionnaire (LTCQ), for use among people with single or multiple LTCs. This study aimed to refine candidate LTCQ items that had previously been informed through literature reviews, interviews with professional stakeholders, and interviews with people with LTCs. Cognitive interviews (n=32) with people living with LTCs and consultations with professional stakeholders (n=13) and public representatives (n=5) were conducted to assess the suitability of 23 candidate items. Items were tested for content and comprehensibility and underwent a translatability assessment. Four rounds of revisions took place, due to amendments to item structure, improvements to item clarity, item duplication, and recommendations for future translations. Twenty items were confirmed as relevant to living with LTCs and understandable to patients and professionals. This study supports the content validity of the LTCQ items among people with LTCs and professional stakeholders. The final items are suitable to enter the next stage of psychometric refinement.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 27%
Researcher 2 18%
Other 1 9%
Student > Bachelor 1 9%
Professor 1 9%
Other 1 9%
Unknown 2 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 3 27%
Psychology 2 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 9%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 18%

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 21 November 2016.
All research outputs
#4,672,689
of 8,664,483 outputs
Outputs from Patient related outcome measures
#37
of 75 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,045
of 296,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient related outcome measures
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,664,483 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 75 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 296,043 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 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them