↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Helping patients make better decisions: how to apply behavioral economics in clinical practice

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
Title
Helping patients make better decisions: how to apply behavioral economics in clinical practice
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, October 2014
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s71224
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maureen Reni Courtney, Christy Spivey, Kathy M Daniel

Abstract

Clinicians are committed to effectively educating patients and helping them to make sound decisions concerning their own health care. However, how do clinicians determine what is effective education? How do they present information clearly and in a manner that patients understand and can use to make informed decisions? Behavioral economics (BE) is a subfield of economics that can assist clinicians to better understand how individuals actually make decisions. BE research can help guide interactions with patients so that information is presented and discussed in a more deliberate and impactful way. We can be more effective providers of care when we understand the factors that influence how our patients make decisions, factors of which we may have been largely unaware. BE research that focuses on health care and medical decision making is becoming more widely known, and what has been reported suggests that BE interventions can be effective in the medical realm. The purpose of this article is to provide clinicians with an overview of BE decision science and derived practice strategies to promote more effective behavior change in patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 1%
Unknown 73 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 23%
Researcher 14 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Other 6 8%
Other 13 18%
Unknown 11 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 12 16%
Psychology 10 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 8%
Other 14 19%
Unknown 15 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 09 November 2014.
All research outputs
#16,045,990
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#914
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#143,086
of 265,618 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#11
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 265,618 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.