↓ Skip to main content

Measuring the burden of treatment for chronic disease: implications of a scoping review of the literature

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 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
Measuring the burden of treatment for chronic disease: implications of a scoping review of the literature
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12874-017-0411-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adem Sav, Asiyeh Salehi, Frances S. Mair, Sara S. McMillan

Abstract

Although there has been growing research on the burden of treatment, the current state of evidence on measuring this concept is unknown. This scoping review aimed to provide an overview of the current state of knowledge as well as clear recommendations for future research, within the context of chronic disease. Four health-based databases, Scopus, CINAHL, Medline, and PsychInfo, were comprehensively searched for peer-reviewed articles published between the periods of 2000-2016. Titles and abstracts were independently read by two authors. All discrepancies between the authors were resolved by a third author. Data was extracted using a standardized proforma and a comparison analysis was used in order to explore the key treatment burden measures and categorize them into three groups. Database searching identified 1458 potential papers. After removal of duplications, and irrelevant articles by title, 1102 abstracts remained. An additional 22 papers were added via snowball searching. In the end, 101 full papers were included in the review. A large number of the studies involved quantitative measures and conceptualizations of treatment burden (n = 64; 63.4%), and were conducted in North America (n = 49; 48.5%). There was significant variation in how the treatment burden experienced by those with chronic disease was operationalized and measured. Despite significant work, there is still much ground to cover to comprehensively measure treatment burden for chronic disease. Greater qualitative focus, more research with cultural and minority populations, a larger emphasis on longitudinal studies and the consideration of the potential effects of "identity" on treatment burden, should be considered.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 16%
Student > Master 9 12%
Other 6 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Other 20 27%
Unknown 17 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 17 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 20%
Social Sciences 7 9%
Psychology 5 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 21 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 27 September 2017.
All research outputs
#2,338,250
of 15,860,115 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#380
of 1,491 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,383
of 230,351 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,860,115 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,491 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 230,351 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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