↓ Skip to main content

Self-management interventions: Proposal and validation of a new operational definition

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, August 2016
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 (78th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
83 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
203 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
Self-management interventions: Proposal and validation of a new operational definition
Published in
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, August 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.08.001
Pubmed ID
URN
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-134090
Authors

Nini H. Jonkman, Marieke J. Schuurmans, Tiny Jaarsma, Lillie M. Shortridge-Baggett, Arno W. Hoes, Jaap C.A. Trappenburg

Abstract

Systematic reviews on complex interventions like self-management interventions often do not explicitly state an operational definition of the intervention studied, which may impact the review's conclusions. This study aimed to propose an operational definition of self-management interventions and determine its discriminative performance compared to other operational definitions. Systematic review of definitions of 'self-management interventions' and consensus meetings with self-management research experts and practitioners. Self-management interventions were defined as "interventions that aim to equip patients with skills to actively participate and take responsibility in the management of their chronic condition in order to function optimally through at least knowledge acquisition and a combination of at least two of the following: stimulation of independent sign/symptom monitoring, medication management, enhancing problem-solving and decision-making skills for medical treatment management, and changing their physical activity, dietary and/or smoking behaviour." This definition substantially reduced the number of selected studies (255/750). In two preliminary expert meetings (n=6), the proposed definition was identifiable for self-management research experts and practitioners (resp. 80% and 60% agreement). Future systematic reviews must carefully consider the operational definition of the intervention studied, since the definition influences the selection of studies upon which conclusions and recommendations for clinical practice are based.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users 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 203 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 1 <1%
Iceland 1 <1%
Unknown 201 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 41 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 11%
Researcher 21 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 6%
Student > Bachelor 11 5%
Other 31 15%
Unknown 64 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 55 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 30 15%
Social Sciences 8 4%
Psychology 6 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 2%
Other 28 14%
Unknown 71 35%
Attention Score in Context

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 24 February 2024.
All research outputs
#4,759,600
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
#1,653
of 4,782 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,853
of 367,938 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
#18
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,782 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 367,938 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 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.