↓ Skip to main content

The feasibility of implementing the ICHOM Standard Set for Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis: a mixed-methods evaluation in public and private hospital settings

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#7 of 110)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 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
The feasibility of implementing the ICHOM Standard Set for Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis: a mixed-methods evaluation in public and private hospital settings
Published in
Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s41687-018-0062-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ilana N. Ackerman, Bernarda Cavka, Jacob Lippa, Andrew Bucknill

Abstract

There is growing international momentum for standardising patient outcome assessment and using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to capture outcomes that matter to patients. The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) Standard Sets were developed to capture the outcomes of care for costly conditions including osteoarthritis. This study evaluated the feasibility of implementing the ICHOM Standard Set for Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis in 'real world' public and private hospital settings. A mixed-methods design was used to capture comprehensive data on patient outcomes, implementation costs, and the implementation experiences of patients, clinicians and administrative staff. The ICHOM Standard Set was implemented at two hospital sites (1 public, 1 private) in May 2016. Patients undergoing primary hip or knee replacement for osteoarthritis were recruited from pre-admission clinics and a private orthopaedic clinic. Baseline Standard Set data were collected before surgery and at pre-determined post-operative timepoints. Data on the costs of Standard Set implementation were also collected. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders (n = 15) to evaluate the ease of implementation, and explore barriers and enablers to implementation and sustainability. The cost of Standard Set implementation and ongoing data collection for 17 months totalled $AUD94,955. Preference data (collected prior to completing the Standard Set) revealed that most participants preferred paper-based (83%) or web-based questionnaire completion (14%), with only a small proportion preferring iPad-based completion (3%). Several PROMs within the Standard Set were responsive to change (effect size range 0.19-0.85), with significant improvements in important health outcomes identified 6 weeks after surgery. Patient interviews showed a variable understanding of why patient-reported data collection is undertaken; however, patients perceived that PROMs provided relevant information to treating clinicians, and that the burden of questionnaire completion was minimal. Staff interviews revealed that PROMs are considered valuable, dedicated personnel are required to support data collection, gaps in information technology resources must be addressed, and that the Standard Set offers benefits beyond what currently-used measures provide. The Standard Set can be feasibly implemented in hospital settings, but with important caveats around staffing and technical support, consideration of patient preferences, and promotion of active clinician engagement.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 5 28%
Other 5 28%
Student > Bachelor 3 17%
Researcher 3 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Other 0 0%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 33%
Unspecified 6 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Other 1 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 18 September 2019.
All research outputs
#1,472,989
of 13,644,402 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes
#7
of 110 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,112
of 268,761 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,644,402 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 110 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 268,761 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 82% 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