↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Feasibility of visual aids for risk evaluation by hospitalized patients with coronary artery disease: results from face-to-face interviews

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
Title
Feasibility of visual aids for risk evaluation by hospitalized patients with coronary artery disease: results from face-to-face interviews
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, May 2018
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s164385
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carlos Alberto da Silva Magliano, Andrea Liborio Monteiro, Bernardo Rangel Tura, Claudia Silvia Rocha Oliveira, Amanda Rebeca de Oliveira Rebelo, Claudia Cristina de Aguiar Pereira

Abstract

Communicating information about risk and probability to patients is considered a difficult task. In this study, we aim to evaluate the use of visual aids representing perioperative mortality and long-term survival in the communication process for patients diagnosed with coronary artery disease at the National Institute of Cardiology, a Brazilian public hospital specializing in cardiology. One-on-one interviews were conducted between August 1 and November 20, 2017. Patients were asked to imagine that their doctor was seeking their input in the decision regarding which treatment represented the best option for them. Patients were required to choose between alternatives by considering only the different benefits and risks shown in each scenario, described as the proportion of patients who had died during the perioperative period and within 5 years. Each participant evaluated the same eight scenarios. We evaluated their answers in a qualitative and quantitative analysis. The main findings were that all patients verbally expressed concern about perioperative mortality and that 25% did not express concern about long-term mortality. Twelve percent considered the probabilities irrelevant on the grounds that their prognosis would depend on "God's will." Ten percent of the patients disregarded the reported likelihood of perioperative mortality, deciding to focus solely on the "chance of being cured." In the quantitative analysis, the vast majority of respondents chose the "correct" alternatives, meaning that they made consistent and rational choices. The use of visual aids to present risk attributes appeared feasible in our sample. The impact of heuristics and religious beliefs on shared health decision making needs to be explored better in future studies.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 30%
Researcher 3 13%
Unspecified 2 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Lecturer 1 4%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 4 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 4 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 13%
Unspecified 2 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 7 30%
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 08 May 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
#219,253
of 339,234 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#24
of 45 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 339,234 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.