↓ Skip to main content

Perceptions of patients and providers on myocardial perfusion imaging for asymptomatic patients, choosing wisely, and professional liability

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
Perceptions of patients and providers on myocardial perfusion imaging for asymptomatic patients, choosing wisely, and professional liability
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2510-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kristopher P. Kline, Leslee Shaw, Rebecca J. Beyth, Jared Plumb, Linda Nguyen, Tianyao Huo, David E. Winchester

Abstract

Despite efforts by professional societies to reduce low value care, many reports indicate that unnecessary tests, such as nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI), are commonly used in contemporary practice. The degree to which lack of awareness and professional liability concerns drive these behaviors warrants further study. We sought to investigate patient and provider perceptions about MPI in asymptomatic patients, the Choosing Wisely (CW) campaign, and professional liability concerns. We administered an anonymous, paper-based survey with both discrete and open-response queries to subjects in multiple outpatient settings at our facilities. The survey was completed by 456 respondents including 342 patients and 114 physicians and advanced practice providers between May and August 2014. Our outcome was to compare patient and provider perceptions about MPI in asymptomatic patients and related factors. Patients were more likely than providers to report that MPI was justified for asymptomatic patients (e.g. asymptomatic with family history of heart disease 75% versus 9.2%, p < 0.0001). In free responses to the question "What would be an inappropriate reason for MPI?" many responses echoed the goals of CW (for example, "If you don't have symptoms", "If the test is too risky", "For screening or in asymptomatic patients"). A minority of providers were aware of CW while even fewer patients were aware (37.2% versus 2.7%, p < 0.0001). Over one third of providers (38.9%) admitted to ordering MPI out of concern for professional liability including 48.3% of VA affiliated providers. While some patients and providers are aware of the low value of MPI in patients without symptoms, others are enthusiastic to use it for a variety of scenarios. Concerns about professional liability likely contribute, even in the VA setting. Awareness of the Choosing Wisely campaign is low in both groups.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 16%
Researcher 3 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Other 4 16%
Unknown 8 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 36%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Psychology 1 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 10 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 14 August 2017.
All research outputs
#18,567,744
of 22,997,544 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#6,541
of 7,702 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#243,930
of 318,512 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#142
of 162 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,997,544 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,702 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 318,512 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 162 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.