| Title |
An overview of patient involvement in healthcare decision-making: a situational analysis of the Malaysian context
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, October 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6963-13-408 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chirk-Jenn Ng, Ping-Yein Lee, Yew-Kong Lee, Boon-How Chew, Julia P Engkasan, Zarina-Ismail Irmi, Nik-Sherina Hanafi, Seng-Fah Tong |
| Abstract |
Involving patients in decision-making is an important part of patient-centred care. Research has found a discrepancy between patients' desire to be involved and their actual involvement in healthcare decision-making. In Asia, there is a dearth of research in decision-making. Using Malaysia as an exemplar, this study aims to review the current research evidence, practices, policies, and laws with respect to patient engagement in shared decision-making (SDM) in Asia. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 20% |
| Spain | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 40% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 209 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Malaysia | 3 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Ghana | 1 | <1% |
| Singapore | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 202 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 42 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 38 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 10% |
| Researcher | 14 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 12 | 6% |
| Other | 46 | 22% |
| Unknown | 37 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 72 | 34% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 28 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 26 | 12% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 8 | 4% |
| Psychology | 6 | 3% |
| Other | 24 | 11% |
| Unknown | 45 | 22% |
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 29 February 2016.
All research outputs
#12,593,646
of 22,727,570 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#4,077
of 7,606 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,446
of 210,284 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#66
of 126 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,727,570 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,606 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 210,284 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 126 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.