↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Communicating laboratory test results for rheumatoid factor: what do patients and physicians want?

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
Title
Communicating laboratory test results for rheumatoid factor: what do patients and physicians want?
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, December 2016
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s104396
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ariella Kelman, Caroline O Robinson, Elisenda Cochin, Nina J Ahluwalia, Julia Braverman, Emil Chiauzzi, Kristina Simacek

Abstract

This study aimed to explore patient and physician perspectives on current laboratory test reporting practices and to elicit ideas for improvement. Two independent studies were conducted. The first solicited members of an online physician community for opinions on current laboratory test reporting practices and possible improvements. The second addressed the same topic, but solicited patient feedback, and included an evaluation of a mock laboratory test report for the rheumatoid factor blood test. Both physicians and patients expressed a desire for patient-friendly information on laboratory reports. Physicians expressed a need for education for patients around false-positive and false-negative results within laboratory reports, while patients sought context around the meaning of results, relevance to other tests, and follow-up steps. Physicians and patients see value in enhancing laboratory test reports to improve communication. While reports should include the context that patients value, they should also contain cautionary interpretation emphasized by physicians. Patient consultation on improving laboratory reports may help improve such patient-focused communication and promote greater patient understanding of health information, thereby increasing patient participation in their own health care and improving outcomes. Laboratory reports are typically designed by experts. Including patients in laboratory report design may facilitate communication and improve outcomes through better patient engagement.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 16%
Researcher 6 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Librarian 3 8%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 9 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 13%
Social Sciences 3 8%
Energy 2 5%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 13 34%
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 27 December 2016.
All research outputs
#7,030,117
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#477
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,597
of 416,449 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#8
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,757 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 72% 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 416,449 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.