↓ Skip to main content

Comparing health-related quality of life of Dutch and Chinese patients with traumatic brain injury: do cultural differences play a role?

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
97 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
Comparing health-related quality of life of Dutch and Chinese patients with traumatic brain injury: do cultural differences play a role?
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12955-017-0641-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maryse C. Cnossen, Suzanne Polinder, Pieter E. Vos, Hester F. Lingsma, Ewout W. Steyerberg, Yanming Sun, Pengpeng Ye, Leilei Duan, Juanita A. Haagsma

Abstract

There is growing interest in health related quality of life (HRQoL) as an outcome measure in international trials. However, there might be differences in the conceptualization of HRQoL across different socio-cultural groups. The objectives of current study were: (I) to compare HRQoL, measured with the short form (SF)-36 of Dutch and Chinese traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients 1 year after injury and; (II) to assess whether differences in SF-36 profiles could be explained by cultural differences in HRQoL conceptualization. TBI patients are of particular interest because this is an important cause of diverse impairments and disabilities in functional, physical, emotional, cognitive, and social domains that may drastically reduce HRQoL. A prospective cohort study on adult TBI patients in the Netherlands (RUBICS) and a retrospective cohort study in China were used to compare HRQoL 1 year post-injury. Differences on subscales were assessed with the Mann-Whitney U-test. The internal consistency, interscale correlations, item-internal consistency and item-discriminate validity of Dutch and Chinese SF-36 profiles were examined. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed to assess whether Dutch and Chinese data fitted the SF-36 two factor-model (physical and mental construct). Four hundred forty seven Dutch and 173 Chinese TBI patients were included. Dutch patients obtained significantly higher scores on role limitations due to emotional problems (p < .001) and general health (p < .001), while Chinese patients obtained significantly higher scores on physical functioning (p < .001) and bodily pain (p = .001). Scores on these subscales were not explained by cultural differences in conceptualization, since item- and scale statistics were all sufficient. However, differences among Dutch and Chinese patients were found in the conceptualization of the domains vitality, mental health and social functioning. One year after TBI, Dutch and Chinese patients reported a different pattern of HRQoL. Further, there might be cultural differences in the conceptualization of some of the SF-36 subscales, which has implications for outcome evaluation in multi-national trials.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 97 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 16%
Student > Master 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Unspecified 6 6%
Other 5 5%
Other 19 20%
Unknown 35 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 11%
Unspecified 6 6%
Neuroscience 6 6%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 36 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 06 July 2017.
All research outputs
#12,972,913
of 22,963,381 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1,005
of 2,183 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,569
of 308,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#21
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,963,381 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,183 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 308,964 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.