| Title |
Determinants of self-rated health in old age: A population-based, cross-sectional study using the International Classification of Functioning
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, August 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2458-11-670 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Solveig A Arnadottir, Elin D Gunnarsdottir, Hans Stenlund, Lillemor Lundin-Olsson |
| Abstract |
Self-rated health (SRH) is a widely used indicator of general health and multiple studies have supported the predictive validity of SRH in older populations concerning future health, functional decline, disability, and mortality. The aim of this study was to use the theoretical framework of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) to create a better understanding of factors associated with SRH among community-dwelling older people in urban and rural areas. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 75% |
| Australia | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 141 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Austria | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 132 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 24 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 16% |
| Researcher | 20 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 6% |
| Other | 26 | 18% |
| Unknown | 27 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 35 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 19 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 19 | 13% |
| Psychology | 7 | 5% |
| Sports and Recreations | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 16 | 11% |
| Unknown | 40 | 28% |
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 07 October 2015.
All research outputs
#6,906,939
of 22,651,245 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#7,262
of 14,732 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,361
of 123,933 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#86
of 199 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,651,245 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,732 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 123,933 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 199 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 53% of its contemporaries.