↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of Outcomes From a National Patient-initiated Second-opinion Program

Overview of attention for article published in American Journal of Medicine, October 2015
Altmetric Badge
100

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
35 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Evaluation of Outcomes From a National Patient-initiated Second-opinion Program
Published in
American Journal of Medicine, October 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.amjmed.2015.04.020
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ashley N.D. Meyer, Hardeep Singh, Mark L. Graber

Abstract

To examine outcomes of patient-initiated second opinions provided by a national second-opinion program. We independently examined data collected from January 1, 2011-December 31, 2012 from a second-opinion program (Best Doctors, Inc.) that allows employee-beneficiaries to request free second opinions. Clinical intake included ascertaining why patients sought second opinions and acquiring patients' complete medical records. Trained physicians summarized the cases; identified key, unresolved clinical questions; and forwarded the cases to expert specialists who provided independent assessments and recommendations. Second opinions were discussed with and returned to patients for review with their physicians. Nurses determined whether second opinions confirmed, clarified, or changed initial diagnoses and treatments and physicians estimated their clinical impact. Patient satisfaction was also surveyed. 6,791 patient-initiated second opinions were completed across medical specialties. Patients primarily sought second opinions for help choosing treatment options (41.3%) and for diagnostic concerns (34.8%). Second opinions often resulted in changes in diagnosis (14.8%), treatment (37.4%), changes in either diagnosis or treatment (41.5%) and changes in both (10.6%). Clinical impact was estimated as moderate/major in 20.9% of cases for diagnosis and 30.7% of cases for treatment. Changes in diagnoses and/or treatments and clinical impact varied across medical specialties. In patients surveyed (n=2,683), most (94.7%) were satisfied with the experience, but fewer (61.2%) planned to follow the recommendations. Patient-initiated second opinions led to recommended changes in diagnosis or treatment for over 40% of participants. Further evaluation is needed to determine whether this impacts clinical outcomes, such as the reduction of diagnosis and treatment errors.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 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 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 19%
United Kingdom 1 6%
Unknown 12 75%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 31%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 25%
Other 2 13%
Professor 1 6%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Other 3 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 56%
Computer Science 2 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 13%
Social Sciences 2 13%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 6%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 100. 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 22 October 2017.
All research outputs
#133,093
of 12,293,535 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Medicine
#63
of 5,689 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,351
of 226,353 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Medicine
#1
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,293,535 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,689 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 226,353 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 96 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.