↓ Skip to main content

Health Democracy Index: Development and Validation of a Self-Reported Instrument for Measuring Patient Participation in Health Policy

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 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
Health Democracy Index: Development and Validation of a Self-Reported Instrument for Measuring Patient Participation in Health Policy
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, July 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00194
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kyriakos Souliotis, Lily E. Peppou, Eirini Agapidaki, Chara Tzavara

Abstract

Introduction: Patient participation has emerged as a preponderant theme in contemporary health and healthcare; however there is a dearth of research on the degree and impact of collective patient participation on shaping health policy. In this frame, the current study endeavored to validate a scale for assessing patients' association (PA) participation in health policy processes. Furthermore, PAs' participation in health policy decision making in Greece was explored. Materials and Methods: The Health Democracy Index (HDI) is an eight-item scale enquiring about PAs' participation in important facets of health policy. To investigate its psychometric properties, 414 members of PAs in Greece were randomly recruited. By employing a self-reported questionnaire, construct validity was examined through exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, while convergent validity was investigated through an additional question asking respondents to rate the degree of their association's participation in health policy processes. Moreover, the internal consistency of the scale and its test-retest reliability were explored. Results: The scale showed high internal consistency (Cronbach a = 0.85) and test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.89, p < 0,001). Exploratory factor analysis suggested a unidimensional construct; while confirmatory factor analysis indicated an adequate fit of the one-factor model (RMSEA = 0.079, CFI = 0.976, and GFI = 0.972). Regarding convergent validity, the HDI composite score displayed strong and positive correlation with the item asking respondents to rate the degree of PA participation in health policy processes (rho = 0.73, p < 0.0001). Concerning the pattern of results in Greece, PAs' participation was found to be low. The lowest level was observed for the item enquiring about PA participation in the national parliament and the highest for panels at influential health-related organizations. Conclusion: The HDI is a valid and reliable tool that can be utilized to serve policy-related as well as research purposes. PAs' participation in Greece is weak and thus efforts should be made to enhance it.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 19%
Researcher 4 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Professor 2 10%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 4 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 3 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 10%
Social Sciences 2 10%
Engineering 2 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 10%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 7 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 13 March 2021.
All research outputs
#6,134,204
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#1,964
of 10,415 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,859
of 296,625 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#39
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,415 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 296,625 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 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 50% of its contemporaries.