| Title |
Shared decision-making in the People’s Republic of China: current status and future directions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Patient preference and adherence, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ppa.s82110 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rongchong Huang, Michael R Gionfriddo, Lizhi Zhang, Aaron L Leppin, Henry H Ting, Victor M Montori |
| Abstract |
Severe insufficiencies in the supply and inequities in the distribution of health care professionals, facilities, and services create conditions for limited quality of care and lack of trust - even violent conflict - between clinicians and patients in the People's Republic of China. Alongside structural reform, shared decision-making (SDM) may help meet the needs and advance the goals of each patient. Little is known, however, about the realities and opportunities for SDM in the People's Republic of China. To identify reports of SDM in the People's Republic of China, we used multiple sources, including: several databases, searched in English and Chinese, online journals, and clinical trial registries. In addition, we contacted experts in the field to identify any articles missed through our other search strategies. We included all trials and surveys reporting on SDM in Chinese patients. We summarized these studies by describing them with particular attention to reports of patient decisional preference and of the impact of SDM interventions on outcomes in Chinese patients. We identified five surveys examining patient preference for SDM and nine studies examining constructs related to SDM in Chinese patients, but none involving patients in Mainland China. We could not find any reports of development, testing, or implementation of SDM tools for patients in Mainland China. The research on SDM in the People's Republic of China is limited, with almost no direct evidence to inform clinical policies or implementation. Although multiple barriers are apparent, the value of implementing, testing, and disseminating effective SDM in the People's Republic of China in terms of patient experience and outcomes demands urgent realization. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | 42% |
| United States | 2 | 17% |
| Timor-Leste | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 4 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 6 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 5 | 42% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 45 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 15% |
| Researcher | 7 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Unknown | 14 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 30% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 11% |
| Psychology | 3 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 16 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 22 June 2016.
All research outputs
#5,395,320
of 25,576,801 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#381
of 1,733 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,934
of 276,760 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#7
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,801 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,733 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 276,760 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.