↓ 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, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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, January 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, Hunter, Cheryl, Fitzpatrick, Ray, Jenkinson, Crispin, Darlington, Anne-Sophie Emma, Coulter, Angela, Forder, Julien E, Peters, Michele

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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 2%
Ghana 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 55 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 33%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 21%
Unspecified 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 5%
Other 13 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 33%
Social Sciences 9 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 12%
Unspecified 6 10%
Psychology 4 7%
Other 13 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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
#2,402,014
of 11,345,787 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#3,440
of 8,481 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,256
of 225,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#129
of 301 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,345,787 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,481 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 225,991 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 301 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 56% of its contemporaries.