↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Approaching patient engagement in research: what do patients with cardiovascular disease think?

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
Title
Approaching patient engagement in research: what do patients with cardiovascular disease think?
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, July 2015
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s84980
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lila J Finney Rutten, Megan A Morris, Lisa M Schrader, Sheila M Manemann, Jyotishman Pathak, Robert Dimler, Veronique L Roger

Abstract

Movement toward patient-centered health care must be supported by an evidence base informed by greater patient engagement in research. Efforts to better understand patients' interest in and perspectives on involvement in the research process are fundamental to supporting movement of research programs toward greater patient engagement. We describe preliminary efforts to engage members of a community group of patients living with heart disease to better understand their interest and perspectives on involvement in research. A semi-structured focus group guide was developed to probe willingness to participate in the following three phases of research: preparation, execution, and translation. The focus group discussion, and our summary of key messages gleaned from said discussion, was organized around the phases of research that patients may be involved in, with the goal of delineating degrees of interest expressed for engagement in each phase. Consistent with what is known from the literature, a clear preference for engagement during the preparation and translation phase of the research process emerged. This preliminary conversation will guide our ongoing research efforts toward greater inclusion of patients throughout the research process.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Unknown 29 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 27%
Researcher 6 20%
Professor 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Librarian 2 7%
Other 6 20%
Unknown 4 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 6 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 10%
Psychology 3 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 8 27%
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 28 July 2015.
All research outputs
#18,420,033
of 22,818,766 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#1,295
of 1,598 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,219
of 263,416 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#45
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,818,766 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,598 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 263,416 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.