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 |
CHF-PROM: validation of a patient-reported outcome measure for patients with chronic heart failure
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12955-018-0874-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jing Tian, Jiangping Xue, Xiaojuan Hu, Qinghua Han, Yanbo Zhang |
| Abstract |
Due to a lack of an appropriate disease-specific patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument for chronic heart failure including its social support and treatment aspects in China, this study was performed to develop a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for patients with chronic heart failure and evaluate its reliability, validity, and feasibility. According to the standard PROM guidelines established by the Food and Drug Administration, an item pool was formed by reviewing a large amount of relevant literature and interviewing patients with chronic heart failure about their main symptoms. Thus, the primary scale was created after adjusting the items and language with the help of patients and experts in the field. Next, 155 patients from 8 hospitals in different districts were recruited for a pilot survey using questionnaires containing these items. The patients' responses were analyzed using the classical test theory and item response theory to select high-quality items and determine the subdomains of the scale. This was followed by a formal investigation in the same eight hospitals. In total, 360 patients and 100 healthy subjects were included to evaluate the reliability, validity, and feasibility of the items. Through this process, the final scale was established. The final scale comprised 12 subdomains with 57 items related to physical, psychological, social, and therapeutic areas. The data analysis results of the formal investigation showed that the PROM for chronic heart failure had good reliability, validity, and feasibility. Reliability was verified by Cronbach's alpha coefficient, which was 0.913 for the total scale, 0.903 for the physical domain, 0.941 for the psychological domain, 0.827 for the social domain, and 0.839 for the therapeutic domain. The construct validity results met the relative criteria of confirmatory factor analysis. Discriminant validity was represented by score comparisons of nine subdomains. The response rate and the effective rate of return of the CHF-PROM were 98.94% and 98.92%, respectively. The final scale coincides with the theoretical framework and better reflects the overall quality of life of patients with chronic heart failure. This scale can be used as a valid instrument to evaluate clinical treatment and clinical trials of chronic heart failure. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 71 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 6% |
| Professor | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 13 | 18% |
| Unknown | 25 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 17% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Psychology | 4 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 11% |
| Unknown | 28 | 39% |
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 09 July 2020.
All research outputs
#3,596,820
of 23,028,364 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#303
of 2,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,131
of 332,278 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#22
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,028,364 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 2,187 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 done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 332,278 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 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 61% of its contemporaries.