↓ Skip to main content

Validation of the electronic Holistic Needs Assessment

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, October 2015
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 (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Validation of the electronic Holistic Needs Assessment
Published in
SpringerPlus, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40064-015-1401-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Austyn Snowden, Mick Fleming

Abstract

Macmillan Cancer Support UK have developed an electronic Holistic Needs Assessment (eHNA) to: (1) help people living with cancer express all their needs, (2) help those helping them better target support. eHNA consists of 48 items each ranked from zero (no problem) to 10. There has been no psychometric analysis of this tool and so its validity and reliability are untested. The aim of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the eHNA by examining its construct validity. Objectives were to (a) test whether the eHNA measured holistic concerns and (b) analyse the factor structure of the eHNA. Objectives were achieved through a secondary analysis of 5421 responses to eHNA using concurrent application of Rasch analysis and principal component analysis. All the items bar one fit with the Rasch rating model and were equivalently important to people. Differential item functioning was evident according to whether people were described as curative or not. A 12-factor solution explained 46 % variance. Of this the emotional/spiritual factor explained the most variance accounting for 15 %. The eHNA was internally consistent and conceptually coherent with the construct of holistic needs assessment. Clinical focus is best directed to the individual items highlighted by the patient except where patients check too many problems for the clinician to accurately prioritise. In these cases only, the emotional/spiritual factor may help identify appropriate clinical action. Strengths and weaknesses of the analyses are discussed, particularly in relation to 'at risk' subsamples such as those classified as non-curative.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 5%
Unknown 18 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Researcher 2 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Other 5 26%
Unknown 4 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 16%
Unspecified 1 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Other 3 16%
Unknown 5 26%
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 November 2015.
All research outputs
#5,608,810
of 22,830,751 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#324
of 1,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,682
of 283,771 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#28
of 132 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,830,751 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 1,850 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 283,771 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 132 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.