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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Positive effect on patient experience of video information given prior to cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging: A clinical trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Clinical Nursing, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1111/jocn.14172 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Britt‐Marie Ahlander, Jan Engvall, Eva Maret, Elisabeth Ericsson |
| Abstract |
To evaluate the effect of video information given before cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging on patient anxiety and to compare patient experiences of cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging versus myocardial perfusion scintigraphy. To evaluate if additional information has an impact on motion artefacts. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging and myocardial perfusion scintigraphy are technically advanced methods for the evaluation of heart diseases. Although cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging is considered to be painless, patients may experience anxiety due to the closed environment. A prospective randomized intervention study, not registered. The sample (n=148) consisted of 97 patients referred for cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging, randomized to receive either video information in addition to standard text-information (CMR-video/n=49) or standard text-information alone (CMR-standard/n=48). A third group undergoing myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (n=51) was compared with the cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging-standard group. Anxiety was evaluated before, immediately after the procedure and one week later. Five questionnaires were used: Cardiac Anxiety Questionnaire, State-Trait-Anxiety Inventory, Hospital-Anxiety and Depression-scale, MRI-Fear-Survey-Schedule and the MRI-Anxiety-Questionnaire. Motion artefacts were evaluated by three observers, blinded to the information given. Data were collected between April 2015 and April 2016. The study followed the CONSORT guidelines RESULT: The CMR-video group scored lower (better) than the cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging-standard group in the factor Relaxation (p=0.039) but not in the factor Anxiety. Anxiety levels were lower during scintigraphic examinations compared to the CMR-standard group (p<0.001). No difference was found regarding motion artefacts between CMR-video and CMR-standard. Patient ability to relax during cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging increased by adding video information prior the exam, which is important in relation to perceived quality in nursing. No effect was seen on motion artefacts. Video information prior to examinations can be an easy and time effective method to help patients cooperate in imaging procedures. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 96 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 9% |
| Researcher | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 19% |
| Unknown | 26 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 20 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 15% |
| Psychology | 12 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 10% |
| Unknown | 31 | 32% |
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 21 August 2018.
All research outputs
#15,403,045
of 24,417,958 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Nursing
#3,706
of 5,484 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,818
of 335,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Nursing
#126
of 183 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,417,958 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,484 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 335,035 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 183 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.