A THIRD PERSON IN THE ROOM: A CASE STUDY OF THE SWEDISH RHEUMATOID REGISTER
Page: 787-800
2017
- 183Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage183
- Abstract Views107
- Downloads76
Artifact Description
The purpose of this paper is to examine how a quality register in rheumatoid arthritis care was adopt-ed in the Swedish medical community of rheumatologists and what helped and hindered this. A mixed methods case study was carried out to collect data covering the development and adoption of the quality register. By performing 17 key informant interviews and document analysis, significant themes focusing on the context, content, process and outcomes of the innovation was sought for. The innovation process proceeded from idea generation, development phase, and consolidation phase to a phase of shared decision-making. Resistance from physicians, perceived threats to the medical consultation, organisational change climate and lack of integration with other health care IT-systems were perceived as barriers to the adoption of the quality register. Access to longitudinal patient and treatment data, change champions, transformational leadership, changes in the physician-patient dialogue and increased control of treatment quality and costs were identified as drivers of innovation spread. These factors can be categorised as belonging to the construct of perceived usefulness.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know