↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Does information form matter when giving tailored risk information to patients in clinical settings? A review of patients’ preferences and responses

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
Title
Does information form matter when giving tailored risk information to patients in clinical settings? A review of patients’ preferences and responses
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, March 2017
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s125613
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rebecca Harris, Claire Noble, Victoria Lowers

Abstract

Neoliberal emphasis on "responsibility" has colonized many aspects of public life, including how health care is provided. Clinical risk assessment of patients based on a range of data concerned with lifestyle, behavior, and health status has assumed a growing importance in many health systems. It is a mechanism whereby responsibility for self (preventive) care can be shifted to patients, provided that risk assessment data is communicated to patients in a way which is engaging and motivates change. This study aimed to look at whether the form in which tailored risk information was presented in a clinical setting (for example, using photographs, online data, diagrams etc.), was associated with differences in patients' responses and preferences to the material presented. We undertook a systematic review using electronic searching of nine databases, along with handsearching specialist journals and backward and forward citation searching. We identified eleven studies (eight with a randomized controlled trial design). Seven studies involved the use of computerized health risk assessments in primary care. Beneficial effects were relatively modest, even in studies merely aiming to enhance patient-clinician communication or to modify patients' risk perceptions. In our paper, we discuss the apparent importance of the accompanying discourse between patient and clinician, which appears to be necessary in order to impart meaning to information on "risk," irrespective of whether the material is personalized, or even presented in a vivid way. Thus, while expanding computer technologies might be able to generate a highly personalized account of patients' risk in a time efficient way, the need for face-to-face interactions to impart meaning to the data means that these new technologies cannot fully address the resource issues attendant with this type of approach.

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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 17%
Other 6 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 15%
Researcher 5 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 9 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 7 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Arts and Humanities 2 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 5%
Other 10 24%
Unknown 10 24%
Attention Score in Context

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 15 June 2021.
All research outputs
#5,397,545
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#381
of 1,768 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,197
of 324,971 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#19
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 324,971 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 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 62% of its contemporaries.