↓ Skip to main content

Should Health Care Organizations Use Information Gleaned from Organization-Sponsored Patient Support Groups in Strategic Planning?

Overview of attention for article published in The AMA Journal of Ethic, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Readers on

mendeley
20 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
Should Health Care Organizations Use Information Gleaned from Organization-Sponsored Patient Support Groups in Strategic Planning?
Published in
The AMA Journal of Ethic, November 2017
DOI 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.11.ecas3-1711
Pubmed ID
Authors

Priya Nambisan

Abstract

Online forums and partnerships with patients have several benefits, such as the creation of new products and services. However, as with any such initiatives, there are risks as well as benefits. Through analysis of a case of misinformation being spread through a health care provider-sponsored online support group for patients dealing with obesity, this article outlines best practices and strategies to deploy in such organization-sponsored patient support groups. These strategies would enable organizations and patients to use such forums to the fullest extent while preventing or managing their potential risks as best as possible.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users 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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Librarian 2 10%
Researcher 2 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Other 3 15%
Unknown 9 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 3 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Psychology 1 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 10 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 15 March 2019.
All research outputs
#14,771,495
of 25,992,468 outputs
Outputs from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,599
of 344,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,992,468 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
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 344,072 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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