↓ 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 Medicine and Therapies, 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 (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
187 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 Medicine and Therapies, 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 187 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 181 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 17%
Student > Bachelor 32 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 6%
Student > Postgraduate 11 6%
Other 37 20%
Unknown 40 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 61 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 17%
Psychology 14 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Neuroscience 4 2%
Other 23 12%
Unknown 47 25%
Attention Score in Context

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
#3,949,934
of 22,759,618 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#745
of 3,621 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,181
of 228,677 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#18
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,759,618 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,621 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 228,677 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.