↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Interventions for providers to promote a patient‐centred approach in clinical consultations

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
8 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
policy
4 policy sources
twitter
30 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
658 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1469 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Interventions for providers to promote a patient‐centred approach in clinical consultations
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003267.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francesca Dwamena, Margaret Holmes‐Rovner, Carolyn M Gaulden, Sarah Jorgenson, Gelareh Sadigh, Alla Sikorskii, Simon Lewin, Robert C Smith, John Coffey, Adesuwa Olomu, Michael Beasley

Abstract

Communication problems in health care may arise as a result of healthcare providers focusing on diseases and their management, rather than people, their lives and their health problems. Patient-centred approaches to care delivery in the patient encounter are increasingly advocated by consumers and clinicians and incorporated into training for healthcare providers. However, the impact of these interventions directly on clinical encounters and indirectly on patient satisfaction, healthcare behaviour and health status has not been adequately evaluated.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,469 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 9 <1%
United Kingdom 7 <1%
Canada 5 <1%
Spain 4 <1%
Germany 3 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Other 8 <1%
Unknown 1429 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 226 15%
Researcher 199 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 167 11%
Student > Bachelor 144 10%
Student > Postgraduate 80 5%
Other 308 21%
Unknown 345 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 454 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 224 15%
Psychology 120 8%
Social Sciences 90 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 22 1%
Other 158 11%
Unknown 401 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 100. 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 February 2023.
All research outputs
#422,527
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#735
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,811
of 286,552 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10
of 197 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 286,552 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 197 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.