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 |
An Interactive Web Tool for Facilitating Shared Decision-Making in Dementia-Care Networks: A Field Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnagi.2015.00128 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marijke Span, Carolien Smits, Jan Jukema, Leontine Groen-van de Ven, Ruud Janssen, Myrra Vernooij-Dassen, Jan Eefsting, Marike Hettinga |
| Abstract |
An interactive web tool has been developed for facilitating shared decision-making in dementia-care networks. The DecideGuide provides a chat function for easier communication between network members, a deciding together function for step-by-step decision-making, and an individual opinion function for eight dementia-related life domains. The aim of this study was to gain insight in the user friendliness of the DecideGuide, user acceptance and satisfaction, and participants' opinion of the DecideGuide for making decisions. A 5-month field study included four dementia-care networks (19 participants in total). The data derived from structured interviews, observations, and information that participants logged in the DecideGuide. Structured interviews took place at the start, middle, and end of the field study with people with dementia, informal caregivers, and case managers. Four observations of case managers' home visits focused on members' responses and use of the tool. (1) The user friendliness of the chat and individual opinion functions was adequate for case managers and most informal caregivers. Older participants, with or without dementia, had some difficulties using a tablet and the DecideGuide. The deciding together function does not yet provide adequate instructions for all. The user interface needs simplification. (2) User acceptance and satisfaction: everybody liked the chat's easy communication, handling difficult issues for discussion, and the option of individual opinions. (3) The DecideGuide helped participants structure their thoughts. They felt more involved and shared more information about daily issues than they had done previously. Participants found the DecideGuide valuable in decision-making. The chat function seems powerful in helping members engage with one another constructively. Such engagement is a prerequisite for making shared decisions. Regardless of participants' use of the tool, they saw the DecideGuide's added value. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 106 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 22 | 21% |
| Researcher | 19 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 16 | 15% |
| Unknown | 22 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 21 | 20% |
| Social Sciences | 14 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 10% |
| Engineering | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 20 | 19% |
| Unknown | 24 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 31 October 2019.
All research outputs
#2,246,391
of 22,816,807 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#693
of 4,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,150
of 262,285 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#11
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,816,807 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,773 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 262,285 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.