↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

A patient and community-centered approach selecting endpoints for a randomized trial of a novel advance care planning tool

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
Title
A patient and community-centered approach selecting endpoints for a randomized trial of a novel advance care planning tool
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, February 2018
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s150663
Pubmed ID
Authors

John FP Bridges, Norah L Crossnohere, Anne L Schuster, Judith A Miller, Carolyn Pastorini, Rebecca A Aslakson

Abstract

Despite a movement toward patient-centered outcomes, best practices on how to gather and refine patients' perspectives on research endpoints are limited. Advanced care planning (ACP) is inherently patient centered and would benefit from patient prioritization of endpoints for ACP-related tools and studies. This investigation sought to prioritize patient-centered endpoints for the content and evaluation of an ACP video being developed for patients undergoing major surgery. We also sought to highlight an approach using complementary engagement and research strategies to document priorities and preferences of patients and other stakeholders. Endpoints identified from a previously published environmental scan were operationalized following rating by a caregiver co-investigator, refinement by a patient co-investigator, review by a stakeholder committee, and validation by patients and family members. Finalized endpoints were taken to a state fair where members of the public who indicated that they or a loved one had undergone major surgery prioritized their most relevant endpoints and provided comments. Of the initial 50 ACP endpoints identified from the review, 12 endpoints were selected for public prioritization. At the state fair, 359 individuals prioritized the endpoints, the highest ranking of which was having a meaningful conversation with a physician before surgery (57%). Using a novel combination of engagement and research techniques provided the opportunity to understand which endpoints were most important to patients and families and fostered framework development clarifying the differential contributions of engagement and research. Results from this study ultimately changed the content and evaluation of the ACP video.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 17%
Student > Master 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Other 11 21%
Unknown 11 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 13%
Social Sciences 5 10%
Psychology 3 6%
Arts and Humanities 2 4%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 13 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 14 March 2018.
All research outputs
#17,292,294
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#1,065
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#283,821
of 448,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#25
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 448,849 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.