The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
| Title |
Involving patients in quality indicator development – a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Patient preference and adherence, March 2013
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ppa.s39803 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thomas Kötter, Friederike Anna Schaefer, Martin Scherer, Eva Blozik |
| Abstract |
Quality indicators (QI) are used in many health care areas to measure, compare, and improve the quality of care. Ideas of quality differ between health care providers and patients, yet patients are not regularly involved in QI development nor does a methodological standard for patient involvement in QI development exist. In this study we systematically reviewed the medical journal articles and gray literature for published approaches for involving patients in QI development. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 23% |
| Spain | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 9 | 69% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 77% |
| Scientists | 2 | 15% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sweden | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 70 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 20% |
| Researcher | 12 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 14% |
| Unknown | 16 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 21% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 10 | 14% |
| Unknown | 20 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 24 May 2014.
All research outputs
#5,445,931
of 26,493,550 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#382
of 1,780 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,947
of 208,427 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#4
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,493,550 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,780 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 208,427 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 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.