| Title |
What are judgment skills in health literacy? A psycho-cognitive perspective of judgment and decision-making research
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Patient preference and adherence, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ppa.s90207 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Silvia Riva, Alessandro Antonietti, Paola Iannello, Gabriella Pravettoni |
| Abstract |
The aim of this review is to summarize current research relating to psychological processes involved in judgment and decision-making (JDM) and identify which processes can be incorporated and used in the construct of health literacy (HL) in order to enrich its conceptualization and to provide more information about people's preferences. The literature review was aimed at identifying comprehensive research in the field; therefore appropriate databases were searched for English language articles dated from 1998 to 2015. Several psychological processes have been found to be constituents of JDM and potentially incorporated in the definition of HL: cognition, self-regulation, emotion, reasoning-thinking, and social perception. HL research can benefit from this JDM literature overview, first, by elaborating on the idea that judgment is multidimensional and constituted by several specific processes, and second, by using the results to implement the definition of "judgment skills". Moreover, this review can favor the development of new instruments that can measure HL. Future researchers in HL should work together with researchers in psychological sciences not only to investigate the processes behind JDM in-depth but also to create effective opportunities to improve HL in all patients, to promote good decisions, and orient patients' preferences in all health contexts. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 States | 4 | 50% |
| Spain | 1 | 13% |
| Canada | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 2 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 77 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 18 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 13% |
| Researcher | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 10 | 13% |
| Unknown | 18 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 15 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Unknown | 21 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 15 December 2015.
All research outputs
#6,438,690
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#413
of 1,768 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,729
of 295,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#9
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,768 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 74% 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 295,303 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.