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 |
Evaluation of smoking-specific and generic quality of life measures in current and former smokers in Germany and the United States
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12955-015-0316-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
John E. Ware, Barbara Gandek, Anuradha Kulasekaran, Rick Guyer |
| Abstract |
Health-related quality of life (QOL) surveys include generic measures that enable comparisons across conditions and measures that focus more specifically on one disease or condition. We evaluated the psychometric properties of German- and English-language versions of survey scales representing both types of measures in samples of current and former smokers. TQOLIT™v1 integrates new measures of smoking-specific symptoms and QOL impact attributed to smoking with generic SF-36 Health Survey measures. For purposes of evaluation, cross-sectional data were analyzed for two independent samples. Disease-free (otherwise healthy) adults ages 23-55 used a tablet to complete surveys in a clinical trial in Germany (125 current and 54 former smokers). Online general population surveys were completed in the US by otherwise healthy current and former smokers (N = 149 and 110, respectively). Evaluations included psychometric tests of assumptions underlying scale construction and scoring, score distributions, and reliability. Tests of validity included cross-sectional correlations and analyses of variance based on a conceptual framework and hypotheses for groups differing in self-reported smoking behavior (current versus former smoker, cigarettes per day (CPD)) and severity of smoking symptoms in both samples and, in the German trial only, clinical parameters of biomarkers of exposure. Tests of scaling assumptions and internal consistency reliability (alpha = 0.71-0.79) of the smoking-specific measures were satisfactory, although ceiling effects attenuated correlations for former smokers in both samples. Correlational evidence supporting validity of smoking-specific symptom and impact measures included their substantial inter-correlation and higher correlations (than generic measures) with smoking behavior (favoring former over current groups) and CPD in both samples. In the German trial, both smoking-specific measures correlated significantly (p < 0.05) with all four biomarkers. QOL impact attributed to smoking correlated with the SF-36 mental but not physical summary measures in both samples. German- and English-language TQOLITv1 surveys have comparable and satisfactory psychometric properties. Cross-sectional tests, including correlations with four biomarkers, support the validity of the new smoking-specific measures for use in studies of otherwise healthy smokers. Smoking-specific measures consistently performed better than generic QOL measures in all tests of validity. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 Kingdom | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 38 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Researcher | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 16% |
| Unknown | 11 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 16% |
| Psychology | 6 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 8% |
| Sports and Recreations | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 12 | 32% |
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 19 February 2016.
All research outputs
#14,235,639
of 22,824,164 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1,130
of 2,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,334
of 238,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#21
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,824,164 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,158 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 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 238,133 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 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 59% of its contemporaries.