↓ 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, April 2015
Altmetric Badge
108

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 (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
38 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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.
Title
Evaluation of Outcomes From a National Patient-initiated Second-opinion Program
Published in
American Journal of Medicine, April 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 38 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 6%
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 32 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Lecturer 2 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 8 23%
Unknown 10 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 40%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 9%
Social Sciences 3 9%
Computer Science 2 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 8 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 108. 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 27 June 2019.
All research outputs
#390,072
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Medicine
#187
of 7,887 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,324
of 279,904 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Medicine
#2
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 7,887 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 279,904 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 77 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 97% of its contemporaries.