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 |
Health literacy as a moderator of health-related quality of life responses to chronic disease among Chinese rural women
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Women's Health, April 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12905-015-0190-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cuili Wang, Robert L Kane, Dongjuan Xu, Qingyue Meng |
| Abstract |
Chronic disease is the leading global health threat and impairs patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Low health literacy is linked with chronic diseases prevalence and poor HRQoL. However, the interaction of health literacy with chronic disease on HRQoL remains unknown. Therefore, we examined how health literacy might modify the association between chronic disease and their HRQoL impacts. We conducted a health survey of 913 poor rural women aged 23-57 years in Northwestern China. We assessed health literacy and HRQol using the revised Chinese Adult Health Literacy Questionnaire (R-CAHLQ) and Euroqol-5D (EQ-5D), respectively. Low health literacy was indicated by a cut-off of less than the mean of the factor score. Self-reported preexisting physician-diagnosed chronic disease and socio-demographic characteristics were also included. We fitted log-binomial regression models for each dimension of EQ-5D to examine its association with health literacy and chronic disease. We also ran linear regression models for EQ VAS scores and utility scores. The low health literacy group was 1.33 times more likely to have a chronic disease than the high health literacy group. Pain/discomfort was the most prevalent impairment, and was more common in the low health literacy group (PR [prevalence ratio] = 1.23; 95% CI = 1.01, 1.50). Chronic disease strongly predicted impairments in all the EQ-5D dimensions, with PRs ranging from 2.14 to 4.07. The association between chronic disease and pain/discomfort varied by health literacy level (health literacy × chronic disease: P = 0.033), and was less pronounced in the low health literacy group (PR = 2.15; 95% CI = 1.76, 2.64) than in the high health literacy group (PR = 3.19; 95% CI = 2.52, 4.05). The low health literacy group had lower VAS scores and utility scores, and slightly less decrement of VAS scores and utility scores associated with chronic disease. Health literacy modified the impacts of chronic disease on HRQoL, and low health literacy group reported less HRQoL impacts related to chronic disease. Research should address health literacy issues as well as root causes of health disparities for vulnerable populations. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 | 3 | 75% |
| Japan | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Cuba | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 102 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 25 | 24% |
| Unknown | 25 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 29 | 28% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 22 | 21% |
| Psychology | 7 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 8% |
| Unknown | 28 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 26 January 2016.
All research outputs
#13,939,932
of 22,799,071 outputs
Outputs from BMC Women's Health
#1,031
of 1,811 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,289
of 264,077 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Women's Health
#14
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,799,071 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,811 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 264,077 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.