↓ Skip to main content

Dialogues between nurses, patients with heart failure and their partners during a dyadic psychoeducational intervention: a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 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
Dialogues between nurses, patients with heart failure and their partners during a dyadic psychoeducational intervention: a qualitative study
Published in
BMJ Open, December 2017
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018236
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria Liljeroos, Susanna Ågren, Tiny Jaarsma, Anna Stromberg

Abstract

To describe nurses' documentation of the content in a psychoeducational intervention inspired by Stuifbergen's model addressing cognitive, supportive and behavioural needs of patient-partner dyads affected by heart failure. A descriptive qualitative design was used analysing nurses' documentation in a dialogue guide based on a health promotion model. The dialogue guide was used during three nurse-led sessions at two heart failure clinics in Sweden with patients affected with heart failure and their partners during the years 2005-2008. The dialogue guides from 71 patient-partner dyads were analysed using direct deductive content analyses. Patients' mean age was 69 years and 31% were female, partners' mean age was 67 years and 69% were female. The findings supported the conceptual health promotion model and identified barriers, recourses and self-efficacy described by the dyads within each category. The dyads described that during the sessions, they had gained enhanced knowledge and greater confidence to handle their life situation and expressed that they needed psychoeducational support during the whole illness trajectory. The results may guide and help to improve content and quality when caring for patients affected with heart failure and their partners and also when designing new interventions. NCT02398799; Post-results.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 98 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 17%
Student > Bachelor 15 15%
Other 5 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 3%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 43 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 28 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 10%
Psychology 4 4%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Unspecified 2 2%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 44 45%
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 16 December 2017.
All research outputs
#15,523,434
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#16,695
of 25,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,119
of 443,583 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#424
of 604 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,593 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 443,583 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 604 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.