↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Modeling the hospital safety partnership preferences of patients and their families: a discrete choice conjoint experiment

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
Title
Modeling the hospital safety partnership preferences of patients and their families: a discrete choice conjoint experiment
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, July 2016
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s105605
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charles E Cunningham, Tracy Hutchings, Jennifer Henderson, Heather Rimas, Yvonne Chen

Abstract

Patients and their families play an important role in efforts to improve health service safety. The objective of this study is to understand the safety partnership preferences of patients and their families. We used a discrete choice conjoint experiment to model the safety partnership preferences of 1,084 patients or those such as parents acting on their behalf. Participants made choices between hypothetical safety partnerships composed by experimentally varying 15 four-level partnership design attributes. Participants preferred an approach to safety based on partnerships between patients and staff rather than a model delegating responsibility for safety to hospital staff. They valued the opportunity to participate in point of service safety partnerships, such as identity and medication double checks, that might afford an immediate risk reduction. Latent class analysis yielded two segments. Actively engaged participants (73.3%) comprised outpatients with higher education, who anticipated more benefits to safety partnerships, were more confident in their ability to contribute, and were more intent on participating. They were more likely to prefer a personal engagement strategy, valued scientific evidence, preferred a more active approach to safety education, and advocated disclosure of errors. The passively engaged segment (26.7%) anticipated fewer benefits, were less confident in their ability to contribute, and were less intent on participating. They were more likely to prefer an engagement strategy based on signage. They preferred that staff explain why they thought patients should help make care safer and decide whether errors were disclosed. Inpatients, those with immigrant backgrounds, and those with less education were more likely to be in this segment. Health services need to communicate information regarding risks, ask about partnership preferences, create opportunities respecting individual differences, and ensure a positive response when patients raise safety concerns.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 16%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Lecturer 3 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 10%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 7 23%
Unknown 7 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 8 26%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 7 23%
Unknown 8 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 September 2016.
All research outputs
#8,042,304
of 25,593,129 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#577
of 1,768 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,633
of 367,841 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#22
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,593,129 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,768 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 367,841 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 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 66% of its contemporaries.