↓ Skip to main content

A survey of primary care patients’ readiness to engage in the de-adoption practices recommended by Choosing Wisely Canada

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
154 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
A survey of primary care patients’ readiness to engage in the de-adoption practices recommended by Choosing Wisely Canada
Published in
BMC Research Notes, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13104-016-2103-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

William Silverstein, Elliot Lass, Karen Born, Anne Morinville, Wendy Levinson, Cara Tannenbaum

Abstract

Strategies such as Choosing Wisely have been established to identify the overuse of interventions considered as low-value. Reduction of low-value practices will require patients to understand why certain interventions are no longer recommended. The objective of this study was to determine whether older adults accept the rationale for and perceive themselves ready to de-adopt annual electrocardiogram testing, imaging for low back pain, the use of antibiotics for sinusitis, the use of sedative-hypnotics for insomnia, and the use of antipsychotics to treat behavioural symptoms of dementia. A self-administered iPad survey was distributed to consecutive patients aged 50 years and older, presenting to three primary care outpatient practices in Ontario, Canada. Data from patients who were able and willing to complete the survey while waiting to see their physician were included. The survey queried knowledge, attitudes and behaviours around the targeted low-value interventions, before and after exposure to a Choosing Wisely Canada patient educational brochure on one of these five topics. A subset of patients agreed to participate in a semi-structured interview after their clinic visit. Three-hundred and forty-four patients (mean age 63, range 50-88, 59 % female) read the materials and completed the survey. Forty-eight percent (95 % CI 43-53 %) intended to discuss the information with a healthcare provider. Forty-five percent (95 % CI 40-51 %) expressed a desire to change current low-value practices. Approximately two-thirds of those who indicated they would not change future behaviours explained that it was because they were already espousing the Choosing Wisely values. After reading the Choosing Wisely brochures, knowledge improved independent of age, sex and education in 48 % (95 % CI 38-57 %) of participants about electrocardiogram testing, in 74 % (95 % CI 65-82 %) about use of antipsychotics, in 66 % (95 % CI 52-78 %) about use of antibiotics for sinusitis, in 60 % (95 % CI 46-72 %) about imaging for low back pain, and in 40 % (95 % CI 26-55 %) about sedative-hypnotic use in the elderly. The majority of primary care patients seem ready to de-adopt low-value practices. Provision of education in clinic waiting rooms can help improve knowledge around unnecessary care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 154 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 153 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 18%
Researcher 22 14%
Student > Bachelor 17 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 5%
Other 27 18%
Unknown 39 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 10%
Psychology 14 9%
Social Sciences 8 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 4%
Other 16 10%
Unknown 46 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 27 July 2016.
All research outputs
#4,264,707
of 24,950,117 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#641
of 4,472 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,496
of 353,007 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#16
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,950,117 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,472 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 353,007 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 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.