↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

The problem with health measurement

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, June 2011
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 (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
112 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
143 Mendeley
Title
The problem with health measurement
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, June 2011
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s14399
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stefan Cano, Stefan Cano, Hobart

Abstract

In this review we discuss health measurement with a focus on psychometric methods and methodology. In particular, we examine some of the key issues currently facing the use of clinician and patient rating scales to measure the health outcomes of disease and treatment. We present three key facts and flag one crucial problem. First, the numbers generated by scales are increasingly used as the measurements of the central dependent variables upon which clinical decisions are frequently made. The rising profile of rating scales has significant implications for scale construction, evaluation, and selection, as well as for interpreting studies. Second, rating scale science is well established. Therefore, it is important to learn the lessons from those who have built and established the science over the last century. Finally, the goal of a rating scale is to measure. As such, over the last half century, developments in rating scale (psychometric) methods have caused a refocus in the way we should be measuring health. In particular, newer methods have significant clinical advantages over traditional approaches. These should be seriously considered for inclusion in everyday practice. This leads us to the central problem with health measurement, which is that we cannot currently be sure what most rating scales are measuring. This is because the methods we have in place to ensure the validity of rating scales fall short of what is actually required. We expand on this point, and provide some potential routes forward to help address this important problem.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
Unknown 140 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 16%
Student > Bachelor 18 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 10%
Researcher 13 9%
Other 30 21%
Unknown 20 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 16%
Psychology 14 10%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Other 29 20%
Unknown 26 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 October 2020.
All research outputs
#3,142,978
of 19,191,572 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#183
of 1,402 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,782
of 138,575 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#6
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,191,572 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,402 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 138,575 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.