↓ Skip to main content

The Unsteady Mainstay of the Family: Now Adult Children’s Retrospective View on Social Support in Relation to Their Parent’s Heart Transplantation

Overview of attention for article published in Nursing Research & Practice, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 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
The Unsteady Mainstay of the Family: Now Adult Children’s Retrospective View on Social Support in Relation to Their Parent’s Heart Transplantation
Published in
Nursing Research & Practice, November 2014
DOI 10.1155/2014/541241
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susanna Ågren, Bodil Ivarsson, Helén Rönning

Abstract

The needs for support among children with a seriously ill parent, who is waiting for heart transplantation, are unknown today. The aim was to describe now adult children's experiences of social support in relation to a parent's heart transplant during childhood. Nine females and four males were interviewed. The median age for the children was 18 at the transplantation and their parents had been ill before for 18 months (median) and on waiting list for 161 days (mean). Three categories emerged: health care professionals' approaches, family and friends' approaches, and society approaches. Our results show that there was lack of support for children of heart transplantation patients. Support in the shape of information was in most cases provided by the sick or healthy parent. It is of great clinical importance to develop psychosocial support programs for children with a seriously ill parent waiting for heart transplantation (before, during, and after surgery).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 27%
Student > Master 2 18%
Researcher 2 18%
Student > Bachelor 1 9%
Unknown 3 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 2 18%
Psychology 2 18%
Social Sciences 2 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 9%
Unknown 4 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 10 December 2014.
All research outputs
#14,797,724
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Nursing Research & Practice
#90
of 203 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,705
of 276,393 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nursing Research & Practice
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 203 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 276,393 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.