↓ Skip to main content

Aligning everyday life priorities with people’s self-management support networks: an exploration of the work and implementation of a needs-led telephone support system

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
123 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
Aligning everyday life priorities with people’s self-management support networks: an exploration of the work and implementation of a needs-led telephone support system
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, June 2014
DOI 10.1186/1472-6963-14-262
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christian Blickem, Anne Kennedy, Praksha Jariwala, Rebecca Morris, Robert Bowen, Ivaylo Vassilev, Helen Brooks, Tom Blakeman, Anne Rogers

Abstract

Recent initiatives to target the personal, social and clinical needs of people with long-term health conditions have had limited impact within primary care. Evidence of the importance of social networks to support people with long-term conditions points to the need for self-management approaches which align personal circumstances with valued activities. The Patient-Led Assessment for Network Support (PLANS) intervention is a needs-led assessment for patients to prioritise their health and social needs and provide access to local community services and activities. Exploring the work and practices of patients and telephone workers are important for understanding and evaluating the workability and implementation of new interventions.

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 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 2%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 119 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 15%
Student > Master 17 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 11%
Researcher 14 11%
Other 9 7%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 36 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 15%
Social Sciences 13 11%
Psychology 11 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 3%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 40 33%
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 23 June 2014.
All research outputs
#18,373,874
of 22,757,541 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#6,455
of 7,617 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,802
of 228,185 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#112
of 130 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,757,541 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 7,617 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 228,185 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 130 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.