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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The Minnesota living with heart failure questionnaire: comparison of different factor structures
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12955-016-0425-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Amaia Bilbao, Antonio Escobar, Lidia García-Perez, Gemma Navarro, Raul Quirós |
| Abstract |
The Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) is one of the most widely used health-related quality of life questionnaires for patients with heart failure (HF). It provides scores for two dimensions, physical and emotional, and a total score. However, there are some concerns about its factor structure and alternatives have been proposed, some including a third factor representing a social dimension. The objectives of the present study were to analyze the internal structure of the MLHFQ and the unidimensionality of the total score, and to compare the different factor structures proposed. The MLHFQ was given to 2565 patients with HF. The structural validity of the questionnaire was assessed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and Rasch analysis. These two approaches were also applied to the alternative structures proposed. The CFA results for the hypothesized model of two latent factors and the Rasch analysis confirmed the adequacy of the physical and emotional scales. Rasch analysis for the total score showed only two problematic items. The results of the CFA for other two-factor structures proposed were not better than the results for the original structure. The Rasch analyses applied to the different social factors yielded the best results for Munyombwe's social dimension, composed of six items. Our results support the validity of using the MLHFQ physical, emotional and total scores in patients with HF, for clinical practice and research. In addition, they confirmed the existence of a third factor, and we recommend the use of Munyombwe's social factor. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 294 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 294 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 36 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 34 | 12% |
| Researcher | 25 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 18 | 6% |
| Other | 57 | 19% |
| Unknown | 101 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 80 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 44 | 15% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 8 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 3% |
| Other | 32 | 11% |
| Unknown | 113 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 18 July 2021.
All research outputs
#1,507,814
of 22,881,154 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#72
of 2,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,448
of 297,969 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,154 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,160 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 297,969 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 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.