↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Finalizing a measurement framework for the burden of treatment in complex patients with chronic conditions

Overview of attention for article published in Patient related outcome measures, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#13 of 196)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
21 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
105 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 Mendeley
Title
Finalizing a measurement framework for the burden of treatment in complex patients with chronic conditions
Published in
Patient related outcome measures, March 2015
DOI 10.2147/prom.s78955
Pubmed ID
Authors

David T Eton, Jennifer L Ridgeway, Jason S Egginton, Kristina Tiedje, Mark Linzer, Deborah H Boehm, Sara Poplau, Djenane Ramalho de Oliveira, Laura Odell, Victor M Montori, Carl R May, Roger T Anderson

Abstract

The workload of health care and its impact on patient functioning and well-being is known as treatment burden. The purpose of this study was to finalize a conceptual framework of treatment burden that will be used to inform a new patient-reported measure of this construct. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 50 chronically ill patients from a large academic medical center (n=32) and an urban safety-net hospital (n=18). We coded themes identifying treatment burden, with the themes harmonized through discussion between multiple coders. Four focus groups, each with five to eight participants with chronic illness, were subsequently held to confirm the thematic structure that emerged from the interviews. Most interviewed patients (98%) were coping with multiple chronic conditions. A preliminary conceptual framework using data from the first 32 interviews was evaluated and was modified using narrative data from 18 additional interviews with a racially and socioeconomically diverse sample of patients. The final framework features three overarching themes with associated subthemes. These themes included: 1) work patients must do to care for their health (eg, taking medications, keeping medical appointments, monitoring health); 2) challenges/stressors that exacerbate perceived burden (eg, financial, interpersonal, provider obstacles); and 3) impacts of burden (eg, role limitations, mental exhaustion). All themes and subthemes were subsequently confirmed in focus groups. The final conceptual framework can be used as a foundation for building a patient self-report measure to systematically study treatment burden for research and analytical purposes, as well as to promote meaningful clinic-based dialogue between patients and providers about the challenges inherent in maintaining complex self-management of health.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Sweden 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 105 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 15%
Researcher 14 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Student > Postgraduate 8 7%
Other 20 18%
Unknown 21 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 26%
Social Sciences 15 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 5%
Other 12 11%
Unknown 29 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 06 December 2016.
All research outputs
#2,245,529
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Patient related outcome measures
#13
of 196 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,624
of 270,996 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient related outcome measures
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 196 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 270,996 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them