↓ Skip to main content

Perspectives from health, social care and policy stakeholders on the value of a single self-report outcome measure across long-term conditions: a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Perspectives from health, social care and policy stakeholders on the value of a single self-report outcome measure across long-term conditions: a qualitative study
Published in
BMJ Open, May 2015
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006986
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cheryl Hunter, Ray Fitzpatrick, Crispin Jenkinson, Anne-Sophie Emma Darlington, Angela Coulter, Julien E Forder, Michele Peters

Abstract

To explore the views of a range of stakeholders regarding whether patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) can be developed to measure key attributes of long-term conditions (LTCs) care in England, and the potential value of a single generic measure. Qualitative semistructured interview study, analysed using a framework approach. Interviews with 31 stakeholders from primary care, secondary care, social care, policy and patient-focused voluntary organisations in England. There was broad support for a single PROM that could be used to measure outcomes for patients with any LTCs in any health or social care setting. Interviewees identified three desired uses for a PROM: to improve the quality of individual care; to increase people's engagement in their own care; and to monitor the performance of services. Interviewees felt that a PROM for LTCs should incorporate a mixture of traditional and non-traditional domains, such as functioning, empowerment and social participation, and be codesigned with patients and professional end-users. Stakeholders emphasised the need for a PROM to be feasible for practical implementation at the individual clinical level as a first priority. A number of concerns and potential problems were identified in relation to the application and interpretation of an LTC PROM. This study has demonstrated support for a single self-report outcome measure that reflects the priorities of people with LTCs, if such a measure can be shown to be meaningful and useful at the individual level. People with LTCs and professional end-users in health and social care should be involved in the development and evaluation of such a measure.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 1%
Ghana 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 92 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 25 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 16%
Student > Master 12 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Student > Postgraduate 5 5%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 17 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 14%
Social Sciences 10 11%
Psychology 8 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 5%
Other 19 20%
Unknown 19 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 11 February 2016.
All research outputs
#6,688,713
of 24,052,577 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#11,221
of 24,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,737
of 270,021 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#157
of 312 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,052,577 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 24,012 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 270,021 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 312 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 50% of its contemporaries.