↓ Skip to main content

Improving of Type 2 Diabetic Patients’ Knowledge, Attitude and Practice Towards Diabetes Self-care by Implementing Community-Based Interactive Approach-Diabetes Mellitus Strategy

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, June 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
131 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
Improving of Type 2 Diabetic Patients’ Knowledge, Attitude and Practice Towards Diabetes Self-care by Implementing Community-Based Interactive Approach-Diabetes Mellitus Strategy
Published in
BMC Research Notes, June 2012
DOI 10.1186/1756-0500-5-315
Pubmed ID
Authors

Titien Siwi Hartayu, Mohamed Izham MI, Sri Suryawati

Abstract

Community Based Interactive Approach-diabetes mellitus (CBIA-DM) is an active self-learning method. This study is aimed at improving type 2 diabetic patients' knowledge, attitude and practice on diabetes self-care by implementing the CBIA-DM strategy. Time series, pre and post quasi-experimental design, Intervention group underwent CBIA-DM, DM-club and Normal-care group acted as control. Data were collected in pre-intervention, immediately, one, three and six months post intervention. Ranging scores for pre and post test questionnaires were: knowledge (0-18) and attitude (9-45); categorizing as rational scales of the scores in good, fair and poor. Practicing in diabetes self-care was assessed using 12 questionnaires, and categorized as adhere and not adhere to DM self-care. Effectiveness of CBIA-DM was evaluated based on the increasing number of participants in good knowledge and attitude levels, and adherence in practicing diabetes self-care.

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 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
Unknown 128 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 15%
Student > Bachelor 17 13%
Lecturer 13 10%
Student > Postgraduate 11 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 8%
Other 24 18%
Unknown 35 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 30 23%
Social Sciences 9 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Other 9 7%
Unknown 36 27%

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 June 2012.
All research outputs
#9,958,555
of 12,440,173 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#1,934
of 2,782 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,705
of 119,108 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#20
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,440,173 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 2,782 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 119,108 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.