↓ Skip to main content

Does pictorial health information improve health behaviours and other outcomes? A systematic review protocol

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
25 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 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
Does pictorial health information improve health behaviours and other outcomes? A systematic review protocol
Published in
BMJ Open, August 2018
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023300
Pubmed ID
Authors

Danielle Schubbe, Sarah Cohen, Renata W Yen, Maria VD Muijsenbergh, Peter Scalia, Catherine H Saunders, Marie-Anne Durand

Abstract

Most health information is verbal or written, yet words alone may not be the most effective way to communicate health information. Lower health literacy is prevalent in the US and is linked to limited understanding of one's medical condition and treatment. Pictures increase comprehension, recall, adherence and attention in health settings. This is called pictorial superiority. No systematic review has examined the impact of pictorial health information among patients and consumers, including those with lower health literacy. This systematic review and meta-analysis will assess the characteristics and effectiveness of pictorial health information on patient and consumer health behaviours and outcomes, as well as differentially among individuals of lower literacy/lower health literacy. We will conduct a systematic search across selected databases, as well as grey literature, from inception until June 2018. We will include randomised controlled trials in all languages with all types of participants that assess the effect of pictorial health information on patients' and consumers' health behaviours and outcomes. Two independent reviewers will conduct the primary screening of articles and data extraction for the selected articles with a third individual available to resolve conflicts. We will assess the quality of all included studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We will combine all selected studies and do a test of heterogeneity. If there is sufficient homogeneity, we will pool studies into a meta-analysis. Independent of the heterogeneity of included studies, we will also conduct a narrative synthesis. No ethics approval is required. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences. CRD42018084743.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 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 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 6 19%
Researcher 6 19%
Student > Master 5 16%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 5 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 16%
Psychology 3 10%
Arts and Humanities 2 6%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 7 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 09 October 2018.
All research outputs
#1,138,089
of 14,571,155 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#2,566
of 13,415 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,250
of 274,395 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#97
of 554 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,571,155 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,415 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 274,395 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 554 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.