↓ Skip to main content

Making information ‘relevant’: General Practitioner judgments and the production of patient involvement

Overview of attention for article published in Social Science & Medicine, November 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
Title
Making information ‘relevant’: General Practitioner judgments and the production of patient involvement
Published in
Social Science & Medicine, November 2013
DOI 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.07.034
Pubmed ID
Authors

Megan Clinch, John Benson

Abstract

Sociological work that has engaged with the issue of patient involvement in health care suggests it needs to be recognised that decision-making is not simply an individual cognitive act contained in a single consultation, but a process that is distributed across multiple encounters in relation to a range of agents and non-human actors. Drawing on such conceptualisations of decision-making, and based on semi-structured interviews with 24 General Practitioners (GPs) in the United Kingdom about the prescription of statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, this paper explores the preemptive work that GPs perform when attempting to achieve patient involvement in healthcare decisions. The paper identifies a set of repertoires through which they evaluate and coordinate often contradictory forms of knowledge, transforming them into information that they think is relevant to patients, and which will potentially facilitate meaningful involvement in healthcare decisions. The study concludes by suggesting that such fluid and context sensitive practices are a necessary strategy for navigating complex health environments, which can be justified and underpinned by a relational model of autonomy. However, work needs to be done to explore how such judgments can be calibrated to mesh with the decision-making preferences of patients and what new approaches and standards for practice this would require.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters 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 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
Japan 1 1%
Unknown 66 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 26%
Researcher 17 25%
Unspecified 8 12%
Student > Master 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 14 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 30%
Social Sciences 13 19%
Unspecified 11 16%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Other 11 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 May 2015.
All research outputs
#3,441,431
of 12,070,363 outputs
Outputs from Social Science & Medicine
#3,515
of 7,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,483
of 141,854 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Social Science & Medicine
#34
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,070,363 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,158 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 141,854 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.