↓ Skip to main content

Perceptions and experiences of patients living with implantable cardioverter defibrillators: a systematic review and meta-synthesis

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
110 Mendeley
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
Perceptions and experiences of patients living with implantable cardioverter defibrillators: a systematic review and meta-synthesis
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12955-016-0561-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sim Leng Ooi, Hong-Gu He, Yanhong Dong, Wenru Wang

Abstract

Sudden cardiac deaths have become a growing major public health concern that affects the world. Despite the various etiologies, life-threatening cardiac arrhythmias attribute the main cause of sudden cardiac deaths. Therefore in certain groups of high-risk patients, the Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD) has been recommended as either a secondary or primary prophylactic method of prevention. To summarise the perceptions of ICD recipients and provide an overview of their experiences with regards to the quality of life, coping strategies, and learning needs. A systematic search was conducted using CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Primary research articles published from January 2005 to January 2016 that met the inclusion criteria were selected and assessed for methodological quality. Thirty-nine articles consisting of 16 qualitative studies, 22 quantitative studies, and 1 mixed methods study were included for the meta-synthesis. Findings extracted from these studies were grouped into eight subthemes with 'living the ICD experience: a constant process of redefining oneself' emerging as an over-arching theme. This review provides insight into the perspectives and experiences of ICD recipients. Current evidence highlights the need for healthcare professionals to improve future care standards and develop a patient-centric holistic program that meets the specific needs of ICD recipients. Moreover, future studies are required to address the research gaps identified and also explore the perceptions of patients living with ICD in the Asian context.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 110 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 12%
Student > Master 12 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 11%
Librarian 8 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 7%
Other 23 21%
Unknown 34 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 18 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 15%
Psychology 14 13%
Social Sciences 8 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 3%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 39 35%
Attention Score in Context

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 11 September 2018.
All research outputs
#6,985,392
of 22,901,818 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#803
of 2,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,534
of 417,510 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#5
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,901,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 417,510 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.