↓ Skip to main content

Assessing communication quality of consultations in primary care: initial reliability of the Global Consultation Rating Scale, based on the Calgary-Cambridge Guide to the Medical Interview

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
143 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
Assessing communication quality of consultations in primary care: initial reliability of the Global Consultation Rating Scale, based on the Calgary-Cambridge Guide to the Medical Interview
Published in
BMJ Open, March 2014
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004339
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jenni Burt, Gary Abel, Natasha Elmore, John Campbell, Martin Roland, John Benson, Jonathan Silverman

Abstract

To investigate initial reliability of the Global Consultation Rating Scale (GCRS: an instrument to assess the effectiveness of communication across an entire doctor-patient consultation, based on the Calgary-Cambridge guide to the medical interview), in simulated patient consultations.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
United States 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 138 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 40 28%
Student > Bachelor 20 14%
Researcher 17 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 11%
Unspecified 13 9%
Other 37 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 67 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 17%
Unspecified 18 13%
Social Sciences 10 7%
Psychology 5 3%
Other 18 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 2019.
All research outputs
#1,946,544
of 13,727,939 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#3,811
of 12,286 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,359
of 187,910 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#77
of 251 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,727,939 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,286 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 187,910 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 251 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.