↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Bridging the gap between patient needs and quality indicators: a qualitative study with chronic heart failure patients

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
Title
Bridging the gap between patient needs and quality indicators: a qualitative study with chronic heart failure patients
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, September 2015
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s83850
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ines Baudendistel, Stefan Noest, Frank Peters-Klimm, Heidrun Herzberg, Martin Scherer, Eva Blozik, Stefanie Joos

Abstract

The German National Disease Management Guideline (NDMG) on chronic heart failure (CHF) derived nine clinical quality indicators (QIs) to enable assessment of quality of health care in patients with CHF. These QIs epitomize an evidence-based and somatic point of view of guided treatment, but little is known about the experiences and views of patients with their guideline-based treatment across multiple health care sectors. The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore patient perspectives on guided treatment of CHF across multiple health care sectors. Furthermore, it was investigated to what extent patient perspectives are represented by the QIs of the German NDMG. Using a qualitative approach, semistructured interviews were carried out with 17 CHF patients. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Patient-identified needs focused primarily on aspects like the doctor-patient relationship, communication, quality of individual-tailored information, and professional advice. Patients perceived shortcomings in processes of care such as communication and cooperation across health care sectors, especially at the transition between hospital and outpatient care. From the patient perspectives, the QIs do represent relevant somatic and clinical aims for quality measurement. However, deficits were identified, especially related to communication and cooperation across health care sectors. Given the fact that the inclusion of patient perspectives in quality improvement processes provides an important contribution to patient-centered health care, possible approaches for QI development such as direct and indirect patient involvement or generic vs disease-specific patient-related QIs should be the subject of future discussions.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 18%
Researcher 4 8%
Other 3 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 16 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 18%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 22 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 13 September 2018.
All research outputs
#8,614,141
of 25,576,275 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#643
of 1,769 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,148
of 277,197 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#17
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,275 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,769 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 277,197 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.