↓ Skip to main content

Patient engagement in research: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#9 of 5,362)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
206 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
541 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
664 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
Patient engagement in research: a systematic review
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, February 2014
DOI 10.1186/1472-6963-14-89
Pubmed ID
Authors

Juan Pablo Domecq, Gabriela Prutsky, Tarig Elraiyah, Zhen Wang, Mohammed Nabhan, Nathan Shippee, Juan Pablo Brito, Kasey Boehmer, Rim Hasan, Belal Firwana, Patricia Erwin, David Eton, Jeff Sloan, Victor Montori, Noor Asi, Abd Moain Abu Dabrh, Mohammad Hassan Murad

Abstract

A compelling ethical rationale supports patient engagement in healthcare research. It is also assumed that patient engagement will lead to research findings that are more pertinent to patients' concerns and dilemmas. However; it is unclear how to best conduct this process. In this systematic review we aimed to answer 4 key questions: what are the best ways to identify patient representatives? How to engage them in designing and conducting research? What are the observed benefits of patient engagement? What are the harms and barriers of patient engagement?

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 206 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 664 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 6 <1%
United Kingdom 6 <1%
United States 3 <1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Singapore 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Gambia 1 <1%
Congo, The Democratic Republic of the 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 642 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 133 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 116 17%
Student > Master 108 16%
Student > Bachelor 53 8%
Other 46 7%
Other 140 21%
Unknown 68 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 189 28%
Social Sciences 94 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 84 13%
Psychology 58 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 21 3%
Other 108 16%
Unknown 110 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 149. 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 20 March 2020.
All research outputs
#128,708
of 15,634,304 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#9
of 5,362 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,657
of 190,226 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,634,304 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 5,362 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. 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 190,226 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 1 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