↓ Skip to main content

Feasibility of using self-reported patient data in a national diabetes register

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
Feasibility of using self-reported patient data in a national diabetes register
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-1226-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karianne Fjeld Løvaas, John G. Cooper, Sverre Sandberg, Thomas Røraas, Geir Thue

Abstract

In order to improve recruitment of patients to the Norwegian diabetes register for adults, a questionnaire was designed to collect data directly from patients. The main aim of this study was to assess the agreement of questionnaire data with data reported to the Register from health care personnel during routine consultations. Patient data were obtained by sending a questionnaire with 27 of the 41 Register variables to 3714 members of the Norwegian Diabetes Association. Questionnaire data were compared with data already in the Register. Paired t-tests, percentages of total agreement, percentages of "positive" answers and kappa coefficients (k) were used for comparing data. Of the 1645 replies (44.3 %), the Register already had data on 324 patients for comparison. Response rate for most variables was better from patients (ranging from 76-100 %) compared with health care professionals (33-100 %). For 17 of 25 assessable variables including diabetes duration, height, weight, HbA1c, drug treatment and several diabetes complications, agreement was substantial or better with kappa >0.60. Data on family history of premature heart disease (k-0.59), foot examination (k = 0.26), foot ulcer (k = 0.32) and arterial surgery (k = 0.24) seemed to be difficult to answer by patients, whereas data on physical activity and self-monitoring of glucose seemed to be better when reported by patients. Patient response rate was acceptable, and data had good concordance with data from health care professionals for most variables. However, registers using patient questionnaires should compare questionnaire data with data from professionals at regular intervals.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 20%
Student > Master 4 13%
Researcher 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Other 8 27%
Unknown 4 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 30%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Mathematics 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 5 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 23 December 2015.
All research outputs
#5,067,286
of 6,818,838 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,171
of 2,654 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,488
of 288,566 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#74
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,818,838 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,654 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 288,566 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.