↓ 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 (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
29 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
491 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1133 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 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 1,133 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%
Sweden 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Other 8 <1%
Unknown 1093 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 199 18%
Researcher 183 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 151 13%
Student > Bachelor 117 10%
Student > Postgraduate 69 6%
Other 269 24%
Unknown 145 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 410 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 183 16%
Psychology 107 9%
Social Sciences 87 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 18 2%
Other 128 11%
Unknown 200 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 39. 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 01 May 2020.
All research outputs
#653,693
of 17,601,811 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,630
of 11,720 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,447
of 264,493 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#81
of 491 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,601,811 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,720 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.2. 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 264,493 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 491 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.