↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

General practitioners' and primary care nurses' care for people with disabilities: quality of communication and awareness of supportive services

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 Mendeley
Title
General practitioners' and primary care nurses' care for people with disabilities: quality of communication and awareness of supportive services
Published in
Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, September 2017
DOI 10.2147/jmdh.s140962
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hannelore Storms, Kristel Marquet, Neree Claes

Abstract

General practitioners (GPs) and primary-care nurses (PCNs) often feel inexperienced or inadequately educated to address unmet needs of people with disabilities (PDs). In this research, GPs' and PCNs' communication with PDs and health care professionals, as well as their awareness of supportive measures relevant to PDs (sensory disabilities excluded), was examined. An electronic questionnaire was sent out to 545 GPs and 1,547 PCNs employed in Limburg (Belgium). GPs and PCNs self-reported about both communication with parties involved in care for PDs (scale very good, good, bad, very bad) and their level of awareness of supportive measures relevant for PDs (scale unaware, inadequately aware, adequately aware). Of the questionnaire recipients, 6.6% (36 of 545) of GPs and 37.6% (588 of 1,547) of PCNs participated: 68.8% of 32 GPs and 45.8% of 443 PCNs categorized themselves as communicating well with PDs, and attributed miscommunication to limited intellectual capacities of PDs. GPs and PCNs reported communicating well with other health care professionals. Inadequate awareness was reported for tools to communicate (88.3% of GPs, 89% of PCNs) and benefits for PDs (44.1% of GPs, 66.9% of PCNs). GPs' and PCNs' lacking awareness of communication aids is problematic. Involvement in a multidisciplinary, expert network might bypass inadequate awareness of practical and social support measures.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 89 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Lecturer 20 22%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Student > Master 9 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 3%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 33 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 35 39%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 8%
Psychology 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 37 42%
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 13 December 2019.
All research outputs
#6,487,475
of 23,002,898 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
#249
of 831 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,511
of 316,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
#3
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,002,898 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 831 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 316,303 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.