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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A web-based intervention to support self-management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: effect on self-efficacy, self-care and diabetes distress
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, December 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12911-014-0117-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Catherine H Yu, Janet A Parsons, Muhammad Mamdani, Gerald Lebovic, Susan Hall, David Newton, Baiju R Shah, Onil Bhattacharyya, Andreas Laupacis, Sharon E Straus |
| Abstract |
BackgroundManagement of diabetes mellitus is complex and involves controlling multiple risk factors that may lead to complications. Given that patients provide most of their own diabetes care, patient self-management training is an important strategy for improving quality of care. Web-based interventions have the potential to bridge gaps in diabetes self-care and self-management. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of a web-based patient self-management intervention on psychological (self-efficacy, quality of life, self-care) and clinical (blood pressure, cholesterol, glycemic control, weight) outcomes.MethodsFor this cohort study we used repeated-measures modelling and qualitative individual interviews. We invited patients with type 2 diabetes to use a self-management website and asked them to complete questionnaires assessing self-efficacy (primary outcome) every three weeks for nine months before and nine months after they received access to the website. We collected clinical outcomes at three-month intervals over the same period. We conducted in-depth interviews at study conclusion to explore acceptability, strengths and weaknesses, and mediators of use of the website. We analyzed the data using a qualitative descriptive approach and inductive thematic analysis.ResultsEighty-one participants (mean age 57.2 years, standard deviation 12) were included in the analysis. The self-efficacy score did not improve significantly more than expected after nine months (absolute change 0.12; 95% confidence interval ¿0.028, 0.263; p¿=¿0.11), nor did clinical outcomes. Website usage was limited (average 0.7 logins/month). Analysis of the interviews (n¿=¿21) revealed four themes:1) mediators of website use; 2) patterns of website use, including role of the blog in driving site traffic; 3) feedback on website; and 4) potential mechanisms for website effect.ConclusionsA self-management website for patients with type 2 diabetes did not improve self-efficacy. Website use was limited. Although its perceived reliability, availability of a blog and emailed reminders drew people to the website, participants¿ struggles with type 2 diabetes, competing priorities in their lives, and website accessibility were barriers to its use. Future interventions should aim to integrate the intervention seamlessly into the daily routine of end users such that it is not seen as yet another chore. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 50% |
| India | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 302 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Ghana | 1 | <1% |
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 292 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 53 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 50 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 41 | 14% |
| Researcher | 29 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 16 | 5% |
| Other | 56 | 19% |
| Unknown | 57 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 65 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 53 | 18% |
| Psychology | 25 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 24 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 22 | 7% |
| Other | 44 | 15% |
| Unknown | 69 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 16 December 2014.
All research outputs
#15,312,760
of 22,774,233 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1,309
of 1,984 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,806
of 354,985 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#23
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,774,233 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,984 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 354,985 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.