↓ Skip to main content

Novel study design to assess the utility of the copd assessment test in a primary care setting

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
Title
Novel study design to assess the utility of the copd assessment test in a primary care setting
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, May 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-13-63
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kevin Gruffydd-Jones, Helen Marsden, Steve Holmes, Peter Kardos, Roger Escamilla, Roberto Dal Negro, June Roberts, Gilbert Nadeau, David Leather, Paul Jones

Abstract

The quality of a consultation provided by a physician can have a profound impact on the quality of care and patient engagement in treatment decisions. When the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) was developed, one of its aims was to aid the communication between physician and patient about the impact of COPD. We developed a novel study design to assess this in a primary care consultation. Primary care physicians across five countries in Europe conducted videoed consultations with six standardised COPD patients (played by trained actors) which had patient-specific issues that the physician needed to identify through questioning. Half the physicians saw the patients with the completed CAT, and half without. Independent assessors scored the physicians on their ability to identify and address the patient-specific issues, review standard COPD aspects, their understanding of the case and their overall performance. This novel study design presented many challenges which needed to be addressed to achieve an acceptable level of robustness to assess the utility of the CAT. This paper discusses these challenges and the measures adopted to eliminate or minimise their impact on the study results.

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 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 6%
Unknown 15 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 31%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 19%
Unspecified 2 13%
Student > Master 2 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 13%
Other 2 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 44%
Social Sciences 4 25%
Unspecified 2 13%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 13%
Materials Science 1 6%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 May 2013.
All research outputs
#1,651,570
of 4,507,280 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#220
of 550 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,257
of 89,291 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#13
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,507,280 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 62nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 550 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 89,291 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.