↓ Skip to main content

Designing an implementation strategy to improve interprofessional shared decision making in sciatica: study protocol of the DISC study

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, June 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 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
Designing an implementation strategy to improve interprofessional shared decision making in sciatica: study protocol of the DISC study
Published in
Implementation Science, June 2012
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-7-55
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stefanie N Hofstede, Perla J Marang-van de Mheen, Willem JJ Assendelft, Carmen LA Vleggeert-Lankamp, Anne M Stiggelbout, Patrick CAJ Vroomen, Wilbert B van den Hout, Thea PM Vliet Vlieland, Leti van Bodegom-Vos

Abstract

Sciatica is a common condition worldwide that is characterized by radiating leg pain and regularly caused by a herniated disc with nerve root compression. Sciatica patients with persisting leg pain after six to eight weeks were found to have similar clinical outcomes and associated costs after prolonged conservative treatment or surgery at one year follow-up. Guidelines recommend that the team of professionals involved in sciatica care and patients jointly decide about treatment options, so-called interprofessional shared decision making (SDM). However, there are strong indications that SDM for sciatica patients is not integrated in daily practice. We designed a study aiming to explore the barriers and facilitators associated with the everyday embedding of SDM for sciatica patients. All related relevant professionals and patients are involved to develop a tailored strategy to implement SDM for sciatica patients.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters 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 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 4%
United States 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Portugal 1 1%
Unknown 71 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 19%
Researcher 12 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Other 19 25%
Unknown 11 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 17%
Social Sciences 10 13%
Psychology 6 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 13 17%

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 04 August 2012.
All research outputs
#7,986,180
of 15,414,857 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,116
of 1,475 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,694
of 126,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#5
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,414,857 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,475 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 126,986 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 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 58% of its contemporaries.