↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Measuring the quality of patient-centered care: why patient-reported measures are critical to reliable assessment

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
119 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
315 Mendeley
Title
Measuring the quality of patient-centered care: why patient-reported measures are critical to reliable assessment
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, June 2015
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s81975
Pubmed ID
Authors

Flora Tzelepis, Robert W Sanson-Fisher, Alison C Zucca, Elizabeth A Fradgley

Abstract

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) identified patient-centeredness as crucial to quality health care. The IOM endorsed six patient-centeredness dimensions that stipulated that care must be: respectful to patients' values, preferences, and expressed needs; coordinated and integrated; provide information, communication, and education; ensure physical comfort; provide emotional support; and involve family and friends. Patient-reported measures examine the patient's perspective and are essential to the accurate assessment of patient-centered care. This article's objectives are to: 1) use the six IOM-endorsed patient-centeredness dimensions as a framework to outline why patient-reported measures are crucial to the reliable measurement of patient-centered care; and 2) to identify existing patient-reported measures that assess each patient-centered care dimension. For each IOM-endorsed patient-centeredness dimension, the published literature was searched to highlight the essential role of patients in assessing patient-centered care and informing quality improvement efforts. Existing literature was also searched to identify examples of patient-reported measures that assess each patient-centeredness dimension. Patient-reported measures are arguably the best way to measure patient-centeredness. For instance, patients are best positioned to determine whether care aligns with patient values, preferences, and needs and the Measure of Patient Preferences is an example of a patient-reported measure that does so. Furthermore, only the patient knows whether they received the level of information desired, and if information was understood and can be recalled. Patient-reported measures that examine information provision include the Lung Information Needs Questionnaire and the EORTC QLQ-INFO25. In relation to physical comfort, only patients can report the severity of physical symptoms and whether medications provide adequate relief. Patient-reported measures that investigate physical comfort include the Pain Care Quality Survey and the Brief Pain Inventory. Using patient-reported measures to regularly measure patient-centered care is critical to identifying areas of health care where improvements are needed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 315 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 1 <1%
Unknown 314 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 64 20%
Student > Bachelor 37 12%
Researcher 28 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 8%
Other 21 7%
Other 45 14%
Unknown 94 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 71 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 67 21%
Social Sciences 15 5%
Psychology 9 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 2%
Other 39 12%
Unknown 107 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 May 2020.
All research outputs
#2,152,392
of 25,932,719 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#85
of 1,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,423
of 282,596 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#2
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,932,719 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 1,770 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 95% 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 282,596 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
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 has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.