↓ Skip to main content

Characterizing patient-oriented tools that could be packaged with guidelines to promote self-management and guideline adoption: a meta-review

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
38 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
146 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
Characterizing patient-oriented tools that could be packaged with guidelines to promote self-management and guideline adoption: a meta-review
Published in
Implementation Science, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13012-016-0419-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robin W. M. Vernooij, Melina Willson, Anna R. Gagliardi, the members of the Guidelines International Network Implementation Working Group

Abstract

Self-management is an important component of care for patients or consumers (henceforth termed patients) with chronic conditions. Research shows that patients view guidelines as potential sources of self-management support. However, few guidelines provide such support. The primary purpose of this study was to characterize effective types of self-management interventions that could be packaged as resources in (i.e., appendices) or with guidelines (i.e., accompanying products). We conducted a meta-review of systematic reviews that evaluated self-management interventions. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched from 2005 to 2014 for English language systematic reviews. Data were extracted on study characteristics, intervention (content, delivery, duration, personnel, single or multifaceted), and outcomes. Interventions were characterized by the type of component for different domains (inform, activate, collaborate). Summary statistics were used to report the characteristics, frequency, and impact of the types of self-management components. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) was used to assess the methodological quality of included reviews. Seventy-seven studies were included (14 low, 44 moderate, 18 high risk of bias). Reviews addressed numerous clinical topics, most frequently diabetes (23, 30 %). Fifty-four focused on single (38 educational, 16 self-directed) and 21 on multifaceted interventions. Support for collaboration with providers was the least frequently used form of self-management. Most conditions featured multiple types of self-management components. The most frequently occurring type of self-management component across all studies was lifestyle advice (72 %), followed by psychological strategies (69 %), and information about the condition (49 %). In most reviews, the intervention both informed and activated patients (57, 76 %). Among the reviews that achieved positive results, 83 % of interventions involved activation alone, 94 % in combination with information, and 95 % in combination with information and collaboration. No trends in the characteristics and impact of self-management by condition were observed. This study revealed numerous opportunities for enhancing guidelines with resources for both patients and providers to support self-management. This includes single resources that provide information and/or prompt activation. Further research is needed to more firmly establish the statistical association between the characteristics of self-management support and outcomes; and to and optimize the design of self-management resources that are included in or with guidelines, in particular, resources that prompt collaboration with providers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 38 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 146 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Unknown 140 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 18%
Researcher 17 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 8%
Student > Bachelor 8 5%
Other 30 21%
Unknown 38 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 37 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 29 20%
Social Sciences 9 6%
Psychology 7 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 16 11%
Unknown 44 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 16 May 2017.
All research outputs
#1,713,474
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#319
of 1,809 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,223
of 315,337 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#10
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,809 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 315,337 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.