↓ 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
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
15 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 20%
Student > Master 5 17%
Unspecified 4 13%
Other 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Other 9 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 7 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 17%
Social Sciences 5 17%
Unspecified 4 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 7%
Other 7 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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
#1,454,487
of 11,449,959 outputs
Outputs from BMC Palliative Care
#158
of 475 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,710
of 318,395 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Palliative Care
#9
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,449,959 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 475 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 318,395 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.