↓ Skip to main content

Development and validation of a new patient experience tool in patients with serious illness

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Palliative Care, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 Mendeley
Title
Development and validation of a new patient experience tool in patients with serious illness
Published in
BMC Palliative Care, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12904-016-0172-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karl M. Fernstrom, Nathan D. Shippee, Alissa L. Jones, Heather R. Britt

Abstract

Patients with serious chronic illnesses face increasingly complex care and are at risk of poor experience due to a fragmented health system. Most current patient experience tools are not designed to address the unique care aspects of this population and the few that exist are delivered too late in the disease trajectory and are not administered longitudinally which makes them less useful across settings. We developed a new tool designed to address these gaps. The 25 item scale was tested and refined using randomly cross-validated exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Participants were not yet hospice eligible but sick enough to receive benefits of a supportive care approach in the last 2 to 3 years of life. Full information maximum likelihood models were run to confirm the factor structure developed in exploratory analyses. Goodness-of-fit was assessed with the Comparative Fit Index, the Tucker-Lewis Index, and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation. Test-retest reliability was assessed with the intraclass correlation coefficient and internal consistency of the final scale was examined using Cronbach's alpha. Exploratory factor analysis revealed three domains - Care Team, Communication, and Care Goals - after removing weak loading and cross loading items. The initial three domain measurement model suggested in the development cohort was tested in the validation cohort and exhibited poor fit X (2) (206) = 565.37, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.879; TLI = 0.864; RMSEA = 0.076. After model respecification, including removing one additional item and allowing paths between theoretically plausible error terms, the final 21 item tool exhibited good fit X (2) (173) = 295.63, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.958; TLI = 0.949; RMSEA = 0.048. Cronbach's alpha revealed high reliability of each domain (Care Team = 0.92, Communication = 0.83, Care Goals = 0.77) and the entire scale (α = 0.91). ICC showed adequate test-retest validity (ICC = 0.58; 95% CI: 0.52-0.65) of the full scale. When administered earlier in the chronic illness trajectory, a new patient experience scale focused on care teams across settings, communication, and care goals, displayed strong reliability and performed well psychometrically. This trial ( NCT01746446 ) was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov on November 27, 2012 (retrospectively registered).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 102 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Other 8 8%
Researcher 7 7%
Other 21 21%
Unknown 35 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 17 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 13%
Social Sciences 8 8%
Psychology 6 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 5%
Other 16 16%
Unknown 37 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 13 April 2017.
All research outputs
#5,179,178
of 25,517,918 outputs
Outputs from BMC Palliative Care
#671
of 1,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,196
of 423,643 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Palliative Care
#15
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,517,918 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,526 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 423,643 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.