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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A mixed method evaluation of a group‐based educational programme for CPAP use in patients with obstructive sleep apnea
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, December 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2011.01797.x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anders Broström, Bengt Fridlund, Martin Ulander, Ola Sunnergren, Eva Svanborg, Per Nilsen |
| Abstract |
Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) has a low long-term adherence. Educational interventions are few and sparsely described regarding content, pedagogical approach and participants' perceptions. The aim was to describe adherence to CPAP treatment, knowledge about OSA/CPAP, as well as OSA patients' perceptions of participating in a group-based programme using problem-based learning (PBL) for CPAP initiation. EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMME: The PBL programme incorporated elements from theories and models concerning motivation and habits. Tutorial groups consisting of four to eight patients met at six sessions during 6 months. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 65 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 11% |
| Researcher | 6 | 9% |
| Other | 12 | 18% |
| Unknown | 13 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 20% |
| Psychology | 8 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 14% |
| Unknown | 15 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 13 March 2017.
All research outputs
#7,355,930
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
#552
of 1,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,027
of 248,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
#4
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,569 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 248,005 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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 54% of its contemporaries.