↓ Skip to main content

What is a clinical pathway? Refinement of an operational definition to identify clinical pathway studies for a Cochrane systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
158 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
331 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
What is a clinical pathway? Refinement of an operational definition to identify clinical pathway studies for a Cochrane systematic review
Published in
BMC Medicine, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12916-016-0580-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adegboyega K. Lawal, Thomas Rotter, Leigh Kinsman, Andreas Machotta, Ulrich Ronellenfitsch, Shannon D. Scott, Donna Goodridge, Christopher Plishka, Gary Groot

Abstract

Clinical pathways (CPWs) are a common component in the quest to improve the quality of health. CPWs are used to reduce variation, improve quality of care, and maximize the outcomes for specific groups of patients. An ongoing challenge is the operationalization of a definition of CPW in healthcare. This may be attributable to both the differences in definition and a lack of conceptualization in the field of clinical pathways. This correspondence article describes a process of refinement of an operational definition for CPW research and proposes an operational definition for the future syntheses of CPWs literature. Following the approach proposed by Kinsman et al. (BMC Medicine 8(1):31, 2010) and Wieland et al. (Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine 17(2):50, 2011), we used a four-stage process to generate a five criteria checklist for the definition of CPWs. We refined the operational definition, through consensus, merging two of the checklist's criteria, leading to a more inclusive criterion for accommodating CPW studies conducted in various healthcare settings. The following four criteria for CPW operational definition, derived from the refinement process described above, are (1) the intervention was a structured multidisciplinary plan of care; (2) the intervention was used to translate guidelines or evidence into local structures; (3) the intervention detailed the steps in a course of treatment or care in a plan, pathway, algorithm, guideline, protocol or other 'inventory of actions' (i.e. the intervention had time-frames or criteria-based progression); and (4) the intervention aimed to standardize care for a specific population. An intervention meeting all four criteria was considered to be a CPW. The development of operational definitions for complex interventions is a useful approach to appraise and synthesize evidence for policy development and quality improvement.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 331 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 331 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 62 19%
Researcher 37 11%
Other 24 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 6%
Student > Bachelor 19 6%
Other 66 20%
Unknown 104 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 81 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 55 17%
Business, Management and Accounting 19 6%
Computer Science 11 3%
Social Sciences 9 3%
Other 48 15%
Unknown 108 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 14 December 2021.
All research outputs
#1,212,005
of 25,051,439 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#851
of 3,921 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,098
of 304,676 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#13
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,051,439 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,921 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 304,676 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.