| Title |
Methods of consumer involvement in developing healthcare policy and research, clinical practice guidelines and patient information material
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2006
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd004563.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Elin Strømme Nilsen, Hilde Tinderholdt Myrhaug, Marit Johansen, Sandy Oliver, Andrew D Oxman |
| Abstract |
The importance of consumer involvement in health care is widely recognised. Consumers can be involved in developing healthcare policy and research, clinical practice guidelines and patient information material, through consultations to elicit their views or through collaborative processes. Consultations can be single events, or repeated events, large or small scale. They can involve individuals or groups of consumers to allow debate; the groups may be convened especially for the consultation or be established consumer organisations. They can be organised in different forums and through different media. We anticipated finding few comparative evaluations that reliably evaluated the effects of consumer involvement. |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 17% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
| Comoros | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 523 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | <1% |
| Canada | 4 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | <1% |
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| South Africa | 2 | <1% |
| Sweden | 2 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 3 | <1% |
| Unknown | 500 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 90 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 87 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 61 | 12% |
| Other | 36 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 36 | 7% |
| Other | 125 | 24% |
| Unknown | 88 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 159 | 30% |
| Social Sciences | 71 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 46 | 9% |
| Psychology | 35 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 14 | 3% |
| Other | 79 | 15% |
| Unknown | 119 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 24 August 2022.
All research outputs
#1,148,324
of 23,743,910 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,556
of 12,754 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,722
of 66,885 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,743,910 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,754 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 66,885 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 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.