↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Communication of laboratory data and diagnostic test results to hospitalized patients: a study of preferences and recall

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
Title
Communication of laboratory data and diagnostic test results to hospitalized patients: a study of preferences and recall
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, July 2016
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s111190
Pubmed ID
Authors

Muhammad W Athar, Christine Mativo, Regina Landis, Scott M Wright

Abstract

To assess patients' preferences with respect to different methods of receiving test results while they were hospitalized and to determine whether the different modes of communication of the test results were associated with better recall. Five discrete test results were shared with adult inpatients on general medicine service (blood pressure, white blood cell count, hematocrit, creatinine, and chest X-ray). The information was delivered by a physician in one of three ways: 1) verbally, 2) explained with a print out of the results, or 3) described while showing results on a computer monitor (electronic). The same physician returned within 3 hours to assess recall and satisfaction with the way patients received their results. All the patients (100%) receiving their results in written format were satisfied with the mode of communication as compared to electronic format (86%) or verbally (79%) (P=0.02). Fifty percent of patients in the computer format group could recall four or more test results at the follow-up, as compared to 43% in printed group and 24% who were informed of their results verbally (P=0.35). Patients most appreciated receiving test results in written form while in the hospital, and this delivery method was as good as any other method with respect to recall.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 11%
Student > Master 2 11%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 6 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 33%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 6 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 01 August 2016.
All research outputs
#20,103,978
of 25,576,275 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#1,300
of 1,769 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#269,000
of 367,816 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#51
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,275 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,769 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 367,816 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.