↓ Skip to main content

Using behavioural theories to optimise shared haemodialysis care: a qualitative intervention development study of patient and professional experience

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Using behavioural theories to optimise shared haemodialysis care: a qualitative intervention development study of patient and professional experience
Published in
Implementation Science, October 2013
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-8-118
Pubmed ID
Authors

Liz Glidewell, Stephen Boocock, Kelvin Pine, Rebecca Campbell, Julia Hackett, Shamila Gill, Martin Wilkie

Abstract

Patients in control of their own haemodialysis report better outcomes than those receiving professional controlled care in a hospital setting, even though home and hospital haemodialysis are largely equivalent from mechanical and physiological perspectives. Shared Haemodialysis Care (SHC) describes an initiative in which hospital haemodialysis patients are supported by dialysis staff to become as involved as they wish in their own care; and can improve patient safety, satisfaction and may reduce costs. We do not understand why interventions to support self-management in other conditions have variable effects or how to optimise the delivery of SHC. The purpose of this study was to identify perceived patient and professional (nurses and healthcare assistants) barriers to the uptake of SHC, and to use these data to identify intervention components to optimise care.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Argentina 1 1%
Unknown 86 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 16%
Student > Master 14 16%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Other 16 18%
Unknown 16 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 17%
Social Sciences 8 9%
Psychology 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 20 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 12 October 2021.
All research outputs
#5,425,711
of 20,756,832 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,010
of 1,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,187
of 187,191 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,756,832 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,671 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 187,191 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.