↓ Skip to main content

Coping strategies and quality of life: a longitudinal study of high-grade glioma patient-caregiver dyads

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 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
Coping strategies and quality of life: a longitudinal study of high-grade glioma patient-caregiver dyads
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12955-018-0983-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karine Baumstarck, Olivier Chinot, Emeline Tabouret, Patrizia Farina, Marilyne Barrié, Chantal Campello, Gregorio Petrirena, Zeinab Hamidou, Pascal Auquier

Abstract

Among a sample of patient-informal caregiver dyads in the specific context of new diagnoses of high-grade glioma in the time-frame between diagnosis and the third month following diagnosis, we examine whether the coping strategies implemented by the patients and their caregivers influenced their own quality of life (QoL) and the QoL of their relatives. Thirty-eight dyads with patients having recent diagnoses of high-grade glioma were involved in this longitudinal study. The self-reported data include QoL (Patient-Generated Index, EORTC QLQ-C30, and CareGiver Oncology Quality of Life), and coping strategies (BriefCope). Data were collected at T1 corresponding to the time-frame between diagnosis and postsurgical treatment initiation and T2 corresponding to the 3-month post-inclusion follow-up. Coping strategies based on social support and avoidance were the least used at baseline and the 3-month follow-up, both for patients and caregivers. At the 3-month follow-up, the use of social support at baseline was significantly related to lower scores of QoL for the patients and with higher QoL for the caregivers. For the patient, the use of problem-solving or positive thinking at baseline was not related to his/her QoL, while it was related to more satisfactory QoL scores for the caregiver. The use of avoidance at baseline was linked to a higher 3-month QoL for the patients and a lower 3-month QoL for the caregivers. Using the specific dyadic analyses (actor-partner interdependence model), the 3-month patient's QoL was lower (β = - 0.322; p = 0.03) when the patient mobilized the social support strategy at baseline, but was higher(β = 0.631; p < 10- 3) when his/her informal caregiver used this strategy. After adjustment for sex, age, and baseline PGI score, the link between high use of the social support strategy at baseline by the caregiver and the patient's 3-month QoL, remained present (positive partner effect; β =0.675; p < 10- 3). The QoL for patients and their informal caregivers since the time of diagnosis is directly related to the use of coping strategies based on social support at time of diagnosis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 62 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Researcher 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 18 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 16 26%
Psychology 12 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 13%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 20 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 03 August 2018.
All research outputs
#2,490,438
of 15,442,255 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#235
of 1,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,339
of 278,410 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,442,255 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,660 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 278,410 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them