↓ Skip to main content

Perspectives on the provision of GDM screening in general practice versus the hospital setting: a qualitative study of providers and patients

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
Perspectives on the provision of GDM screening in general practice versus the hospital setting: a qualitative study of providers and patients
Published in
BMJ Open, February 2016
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007949
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marie Tierney, Angela O'Dea, Andrii Danyliv, Louise Carmody, Brian E McGuire, Liam G Glynn, Fidelma Dunne

Abstract

A novel gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) screening programme which involved offering screening at the patient's general practitioner (GP) compared with the traditional hospital setting was trialled. This study investigates perspectives of involved stakeholders on the provision of GDM screening at both settings. Thematic analysis of the perspectives of stakeholders involved in the receiving and provision of GDM screening in both the GP and hospital settings drawn from focus groups and interviews. 3 groups of participants are included in this research-patient participants, GP screening providers and hospital screening providers. All were recruited from a larger sample who participated in a randomised controlled screening trial. Purposeful sampling was utilised to select participants with a wide variety of perspectives on the provision of GDM screening. Participants were recruited from a geographical area covered by 3 hospitals in Ireland. 4 themes emerged from thematic analysis-namely (1) travel distance, (2) best care provision, (3) sense of ease created and (4) optimal screening. The influence of travel distance from the screening site is the most important factor influencing willingness to attend for GDM screening among women who live a considerable distance from the hospital setting. For patients who live equidistance from both settings, other factors are important; namely the waiting facilities including parking, perceived expertise of screening provider personnel, access to emergency treatment if necessary, accuracy of tests and access to timely results and treatment. Optimal screening for GDM should be specialist led, incorporate expert advice of GDM screening, treatment and management, should be provided locally, offer adequate parking and comfort levels, provide accurate tests, and timely access to results and treatment. Such a service should result in improved rates of GDM screening uptake. ISRCTN41202110.

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 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 24%
Student > Master 6 18%
Other 4 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Other 7 21%
Unknown 3 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 12 35%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 6 18%

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 February 2016.
All research outputs
#10,145,333
of 15,922,419 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#10,992
of 14,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,221
of 268,029 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#289
of 363 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,922,419 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,557 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.3. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 268,029 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 363 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.