↓ Skip to main content

Methodological considerations in using patient reported measures in dialysis clinics

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, November 2017
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 (72nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
Methodological considerations in using patient reported measures in dialysis clinics
Published in
Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s41687-017-0010-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

John D. Peipert, Ron D. Hays

Abstract

Patient reported measures (PRMs), including patient-reported outcomes, play a critical role in dialysis care. The usage of PRMs is extensive in dialysis clinics. While there are excellent PRMs to choose from, and their implementation as part of quality improvement and performance monitoring is extensive, there are still methodological challenges to be addressed. In this paper, we identify key methodological concerns around use of PRMs in dialysis centers in the United States and make recommendations for improving the use of PRMs in dialysis related to Selection of PRMs, Mode of Administration, and Support for PRM Use. These recommendations include: (1) Continue the use of Kidney Disease Quality of Life 36-item survey (KDQOL™-36) for dialysis centers' internal quality improvement activities and the In-Center Hemodialysis Consumer Assessment of Health Care Providers and Systems (ICH-CAHPS survey®) for public dialysis center performance monitoring, but promote efforts to modify these instruments by incorporating PROMIS general health items (KDQOL-36) and reducing the length of the ICH-CAHPS. (2) Adopt a PRM of whether dialysis patients have been informed about all dialysis and transplant options. (3) Evaluate equivalence between electronic and paper versions of PRMs prior to widespread use of electronic administration. (4) Explore reimbursement of costs of PRM administration by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and kidney organizations. (5) Continue development of provider trainings in PRM administration and interpretation. These recommendations will help dialysis care decision-makers, clinicians, and applied researchers take the next steps toward enhancing PRM use in dialysis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 15%
Other 4 12%
Professor 4 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 12%
Student > Master 3 9%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 12 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 6%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 13 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 07 December 2017.
All research outputs
#5,633,010
of 23,009,818 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes
#92
of 503 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,844
of 330,711 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,009,818 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 503 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 330,711 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.