↓ Skip to main content

New perspectives on patient expectations of treatment outcomes: results from qualitative interviews with patients seeking complementary and alternative medicine treatments for chronic low back pain

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, July 2014
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 (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
146 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
New perspectives on patient expectations of treatment outcomes: results from qualitative interviews with patients seeking complementary and alternative medicine treatments for chronic low back pain
Published in
BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, July 2014
DOI 10.1186/1472-6882-14-276
Pubmed ID
Authors

Clarissa Hsu, Karen J Sherman, Emery R Eaves, Judith A Turner, Daniel C Cherkin, DeAnn Cromp, Lisa Schafer, Cheryl Ritenbaugh

Abstract

Positive patient expectations are often believed to be associated with greater benefits from complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) treatments. However, clinical studies of CAM treatments for chronic pain have not consistently supported this assumption, possibly because of differences in definitions and measures of expectations. The goal of this qualitative paper is to provide new perspectives on the outcome expectations of patients prior to receiving CAM therapies for chronic low back pain.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 146 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 139 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 31 21%
Student > Master 30 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 12%
Student > Postgraduate 11 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 8%
Other 27 18%
Unknown 19 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 19%
Psychology 12 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Neuroscience 4 3%
Other 22 15%
Unknown 21 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 31 March 2018.
All research outputs
#1,932,789
of 12,733,544 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine
#473
of 2,598 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,476
of 191,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,733,544 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,598 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 191,651 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 84% 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