You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
Title |
How Co-Creation Helped Address Hierarchy, Overwhelmed Patients, and Conflicts of Interest in Health Care Quality and Safety
|
---|---|
Published in |
The AMA Journal of Ethic, November 2017
|
DOI | 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.11.mhst1-1711 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Sigal Israilov, Hyung J Cho |
Abstract |
Co-creation is health professionals' and systems' development of health care together with patients and families. Such collaborations yield an exchange of values, ideas, and priorities that can individualize care for each patient. Co-creation has been discussed interchangeably with co-production and shared decision making; this article explores co-creation through the lens of quality improvement. Although there are barriers to co-creation including physician autonomy, patient overwhelm, and conflicts of interest, co-creation has been shown to promote patient engagement, peer learning, and improved outcomes. Further research is needed in co-creation for systems improvement. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 7 | 39% |
United Kingdom | 4 | 22% |
South Africa | 1 | 6% |
Unknown | 6 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 13 | 72% |
Scientists | 4 | 22% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 64 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 10 | 16% |
Researcher | 10 | 16% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 13% |
Other | 5 | 8% |
Student > Bachelor | 3 | 5% |
Other | 8 | 13% |
Unknown | 20 | 31% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 16% |
Social Sciences | 9 | 14% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 13% |
Psychology | 3 | 5% |
Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 3% |
Other | 8 | 13% |
Unknown | 24 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 03 May 2023.
All research outputs
#3,413,978
of 25,992,468 outputs
Outputs from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,921
of 344,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,992,468 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
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 344,072 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 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them