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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Being Kind to Your Future Self: Probability Discounting of Health Decision-Making
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Behavioral Medicine, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12160-015-9754-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jared M. Bruce, Amanda S. Bruce, Delwyn Catley, Sharon Lynch, Kathleen Goggin, Derek Reed, Seung-Lark Lim, Lauren Strober, Morgan Glusman, Abigail R. Ness, David P. Jarmolowicz |
| Abstract |
Nearly 50 % of patients with chronic medical illness exhibit poor treatment adherence. When making treatment decisions, these patients must balance the probability of current side effects against the probability of long-term benefits. This study examines if the behavioral economic construct of probability discounting can be used to explain treatment decisions in chronic disease. Thirty-eight nonadherent and 39 adherent patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) completed a series of hypothetical treatment scenarios with varied risk and benefit probabilities. As described by a hyperbolic probability discounting model, all patients reported decreased medication initiation as the probability of treatment efficacy decreased and the probability of treatment side effects increased. When compared to adherent patients, nonadherent patients significantly devalued treatment efficacy and inflated treatment risk. The methods in this study can be used to identify optimal risk/benefit ratios for treatment development and inform the process by which patients make treatment decisions. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 43% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 43% |
| Scientists | 3 | 43% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 72 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 10% |
| Professor | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 15 | 21% |
| Unknown | 15 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 26 | 36% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 7% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 5 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Unknown | 20 | 28% |
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 18 April 2016.
All research outputs
#6,697,756
of 24,717,692 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Behavioral Medicine
#617
of 1,465 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,630
of 401,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Behavioral Medicine
#10
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,717,692 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 1,465 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 401,101 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 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 62% of its contemporaries.