↓ Skip to main content

Investigating the meaning of ‘good’ or ‘very good’ patient evaluations of care in English general practice: a mixed methods study

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, March 2017
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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
26 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
103 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 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
Investigating the meaning of ‘good’ or ‘very good’ patient evaluations of care in English general practice: a mixed methods study
Published in
BMJ Open, March 2017
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014718
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jenni Burt, Jenny Newbould, Gary Abel, Marc N Elliott, Julia Beckwith, Nadia Llanwarne, Natasha Elmore, Antoinette Davey, Chris Gibbons, John Campbell, Martin Roland

Abstract

To examine concordance between responses to patient experience survey items evaluating doctors' interpersonal skills, and subsequent patient interview accounts of their experiences of care. Mixed methods study integrating data from patient questionnaires completed immediately after a video-recorded face-to-face consultation with a general practitioner (GP) and subsequent interviews with the same patients which included playback of the recording. 12 general practices in rural, urban and inner city locations in six areas in England. 50 patients (66% female, aged 19-96 years) consulting face-to-face with 32 participating GPs. Positive responses to interpersonal skills items in a postconsultation questionnaire ('good' and 'very good') were compared with experiences reported during subsequent video elicitation interview (categorised as positive, negative or neutral by independent clinical raters) when reviewing that aspect of care. We extracted 230 textual statements from 50 interview transcripts which related to the evaluation of GPs' interpersonal skills. Raters classified 70.9% (n=163) of these statements as positive, 19.6% (n=45) neutral and 9.6% (n=22) negative. Comments made by individual patients during interviews did not always express the same sentiment as their responses to the questionnaire. Where questionnaire responses indicated that interpersonal skills were 'very good', 84.6% of interview statements concerning that item were classified as positive. However, where patients rated interpersonal skills as 'good', only 41.9% of interview statements were classified as positive, and 18.9% as negative. Positive responses on patient experience questionnaires can mask important negative experiences which patients describe in subsequent interviews. The interpretation of absolute patient experience scores in feedback and public reporting should be done with caution, and clinicians should not be complacent following receipt of 'good' feedback. Relative scores are more easily interpretable when used to compare the performance of providers.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 103 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 22%
Other 4 17%
Student > Master 3 13%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 4%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 2 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 13%
Social Sciences 3 13%
Psychology 1 4%
Neuroscience 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 282. 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 27 October 2018.
All research outputs
#44,935
of 13,963,825 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#113
of 12,666 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,196
of 257,506 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#5
of 409 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,963,825 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,666 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 257,506 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 409 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 98% of its contemporaries.