↓ Skip to main content

Qualitative systematic reviews of treatment burden in stroke, heart failure and diabetes - Methodological challenges and solutions

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
151 Mendeley
citeulike
3 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
Qualitative systematic reviews of treatment burden in stroke, heart failure and diabetes - Methodological challenges and solutions
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-13-10
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katie Gallacher, Bhautesh Jani, Deborah Morrison, Sara Macdonald, David Blane, Patricia Erwin, Carl R May, Victor M Montori, David T Eton, Fiona Smith, David G Batty, Frances S Mair

Abstract

Treatment burden can be defined as the self-care practices that patients with chronic illness must perform to respond to the requirements of their healthcare providers, as well as the impact that these practices have on patient functioning and well being. Increasing levels of treatment burden may lead to suboptimal adherence and negative outcomes. Systematic review of the qualitative literature is a useful method for exploring the patient experience of care, in this case the experience of treatment burden. There is no consensus on methods for qualitative systematic review. This paper describes the methodology used for qualitative systematic reviews of the treatment burdens identified in three different common chronic conditions, using stroke as our exemplar.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 151 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Portugal 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Unknown 144 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 35 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 15%
Student > Master 18 12%
Student > Postgraduate 10 7%
Other 8 5%
Other 36 24%
Unknown 21 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 30%
Social Sciences 22 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 8%
Psychology 11 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Other 26 17%
Unknown 30 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 25 March 2013.
All research outputs
#6,399,711
of 21,342,999 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#976
of 1,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,306
of 279,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,342,999 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,900 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 279,312 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them