↓ Skip to main content

Impact of an interactive video on decision making of patients with ischemic heart disease

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, June 1996
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
81 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 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
Impact of an interactive video on decision making of patients with ischemic heart disease
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, June 1996
DOI 10.1007/bf02600051
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lawrence Liao, James G. Jollis, Elizabeth R. DeLong, Eric D. Peterson, Kenneth G. Morris, Daniel B. Mark

Abstract

An experimental pilot study using repeated measures to examine the impact of an interactive video program on the decision making of patients with ischemic heart disease was carried on at a tertiary care center and a Veterans Affairs hospital. The patients (n = 80, mean age 61.1 years, 77% male, 75% white, 26.7% with acute myocardial infarction), who had undergone diagnostic cardiac catheterization and were found to have significant coronary artery disease (> or = 75% stenosis in at least one vessel), watched the Shared Decision-Making Program (SDP) for Ischemic Heart Disease (IHD), a novel interactive video system designed to provide information necessary for patients to participate actively in decision making. This program compares medical therapy, angioplasty, and bypass surgery through a physician narrator, patient testimonials, and empirically-based, patient-specific outcome estimates of short-time complications and long-term survival. Before and after viewing the SDP, patients completed surveys containing multiple choice questions and Likert scales. They rated the program as more helpful than all other decision aids except the physician, and after viewing the SDP they expressed increased confidence in their treatment choice and decreased confidence in alternative options (p = .0001). The greatest effects appeared to be concentrated in those patients with less education (p = .04), and the program appeared to increase anxiety in nonwhite patients compared with white patients (p = 0.07).

Mendeley readers

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 %
Spain 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 55 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 7 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 12%
Student > Master 6 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 15 26%
Unknown 14 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 36%
Psychology 5 9%
Computer Science 4 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 20 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 01 January 2008.
All research outputs
#7,943,894
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#4,251
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,707
of 28,466 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#6
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 28,466 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.