↓ 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 (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
178 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 178 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 173 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 49 28%
Student > Bachelor 28 16%
Researcher 18 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 8%
Other 33 19%
Unknown 18 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 80 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 18%
Social Sciences 11 6%
Linguistics 5 3%
Psychology 5 3%
Other 19 11%
Unknown 26 15%

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
#2,216,545
of 15,220,061 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#4,226
of 13,776 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,101
of 189,637 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#82
of 252 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,220,061 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 13,776 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 189,637 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 252 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 66% of its contemporaries.