↓ Skip to main content

Focus group interviews reveal reasons for differences in the perception of disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis

Overview of attention for article published in Quality of Life Research, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
Title
Focus group interviews reveal reasons for differences in the perception of disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis
Published in
Quality of Life Research, July 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11136-016-1369-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Margot J. M. Walter, Adriaan van’t Spijker, Annelieke Pasma, Johanna M. W. Hazes, Jolanda J. Luime

Abstract

Doctors frequently see patients who have difficulties coping with their disease and rate their disease activity high, despite the fact that according to the doctors, the disease activity is low. This study explored the patients' perspectives on this discordance that may help to understand why for some patients, usual care seems to be insufficient. In our qualitative study we conducted focus group interviews where questions were used as a guideline. Transcripts were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Twenty-nine patients participated in four focus groups. Participants could not put their finger exactly on why doctors estimated that their disease activity was low, while they experienced high levels of disease activity. During the in-depth focus interviews, seven themes emerged that appeared related to high experienced disease activity: (1) perceived stress, (2) balancing activities and rest, (3) medication intake, (4) social stress, (5) relationship with professionals, (6) comorbidity, and (7) physical fitness. When patients were asked why their view of their disease activity was different from that of their physician, seven themes emerged. The way participants coped with these themes seemed to be the predominant concept. Specific interventions that focus on one or more of the reported themes and on coping may improve not only the quality of life of these patients but also the satisfaction with the patient-doctor relationship for both parties.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 18%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Master 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 12 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 11%
Psychology 5 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 15 27%
Attention Score in Context

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 08 February 2017.
All research outputs
#13,534,910
of 22,950,943 outputs
Outputs from Quality of Life Research
#1,379
of 2,907 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,815
of 364,915 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Quality of Life Research
#30
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,950,943 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,907 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 364,915 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 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 56% of its contemporaries.