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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
User-centered design and the development of patient decision aids: protocol for a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-4-11 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Holly O Witteman, Selma Chipenda Dansokho, Heather Colquhoun, Angela Coulter, Michèle Dugas, Angela Fagerlin, Anik MC Giguere, Sholom Glouberman, Lynne Haslett, Aubri Hoffman, Noah Ivers, France Légaré, Jean Légaré, Carrie Levin, Karli Lopez, Victor M Montori, Thierry Provencher, Jean-Sébastien Renaud, Kerri Sparling, Dawn Stacey, Gratianne Vaisson, Robert J Volk, William Witteman |
| Abstract |
Providing patient-centered care requires that patients partner in their personal health-care decisions to the full extent desired. Patient decision aids facilitate processes of shared decision-making between patients and their clinicians by presenting relevant scientific information in balanced, understandable ways, helping clarify patients' goals, and guiding decision-making processes. Although international standards stipulate that patients and clinicians should be involved in decision aid development, little is known about how such involvement currently occurs, let alone best practices. This systematic review consisting of three interlinked subreviews seeks to describe current practices of user involvement in the development of patient decision aids, compare these to practices of user-centered design, and identify promising strategies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 7 | 19% |
| United States | 6 | 16% |
| United Kingdom | 5 | 14% |
| Australia | 5 | 14% |
| Lebanon | 1 | 3% |
| France | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 12 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 27 | 73% |
| Scientists | 8 | 22% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 294 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Unknown | 286 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 54 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 46 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 39 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 7% |
| Professor | 13 | 4% |
| Other | 63 | 21% |
| Unknown | 59 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 65 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 29 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 26 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 20 | 7% |
| Psychology | 19 | 6% |
| Other | 60 | 20% |
| Unknown | 75 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 07 January 2020.
All research outputs
#1,172,994
of 25,295,968 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#159
of 2,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,975
of 364,431 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#6
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,295,968 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,217 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 364,431 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.