↓ Skip to main content

Patient information, education and self-management in bronchiectasis: facilitating improvements to optimise health outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pulmonary Medicine, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
83 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
Patient information, education and self-management in bronchiectasis: facilitating improvements to optimise health outcomes
Published in
BMC Pulmonary Medicine, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12890-018-0633-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katy L. M. Hester, Julia Newton, Tim Rapley, Anthony De Soyza

Abstract

Bronchiectasis is an incurable lung disease characterised by irreversible airway dilatation. It causes symptoms including chronic productive cough, dyspnoea, and recurrent respiratory infections often requiring hospital admission. Fatigue and reductions in quality of life are also reported in bronchiectasis. Patients often require multi-modal treatments that can be burdensome, leading to issues with adherence. In this article we review the provision of, and requirement for, education and information in bronchiectasis. To date, little research has been undertaken to improve self-management in bronchiectasis in comparison to other chronic conditions, such as COPD, for which there has been a wealth of recent developments. Qualitative work has begun to establish that information deficit is one of the potential barriers to self-management, and that patients feel having credible information is fundamental when learning to live with and manage bronchiectasis. Emerging research offers some insights into ways of improving treatment adherence and approaches to self-management education; highlighting ways of addressing the specific unmet information needs of patients and their families who are living with bronchiectasis. We propose non-pharmacological recommendations to optimise patient self-management and symptom recognition; with the aim of facilitating measurable improvements in health outcomes for patients with bronchiectasis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 83 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 18%
Student > Master 10 12%
Researcher 7 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Student > Postgraduate 5 6%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 26 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Psychology 3 4%
Chemistry 2 2%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 28 34%
Attention Score in Context

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 25 May 2018.
All research outputs
#18,624,695
of 23,072,295 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#1,408
of 1,955 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,171
of 330,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#40
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,072,295 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,955 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 330,080 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.