↓ Skip to main content

Quality of life in young people with cystic fibrosis: effects of hospitalization, age and gender, and differences in parent/child perceptions

Overview of attention for article published in Ambulatory Child Health, October 2008
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 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
Quality of life in young people with cystic fibrosis: effects of hospitalization, age and gender, and differences in parent/child perceptions
Published in
Ambulatory Child Health, October 2008
DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2214.2008.00900.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. Hegarty, J. MacDonald, P. Watter, C. Wilson

Abstract

The Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire-Revised version (CFQ-R) was used to evaluate age/gender effects on quality of life (QOL) in Australian young people with cystic fibrosis (CF) who were inpatients/outpatients aged 6-18 years. Parent/child agreement was also examined. The CFQ-R was completed by 18 outpatients, and 15 inpatients at admission for an acute pulmonary exacerbation to a tertiary hospital, Brisbane, Australia, as well as by parents of those aged 6-13 years. Inpatients scored significantly lower than outpatients for the CFQ-R domains 'emotional state', 'social', 'body image' and 'respiratory symptoms'. Young people aged 6-13 years scored significantly better than those aged 14-18 years for 'emotional state', 'body image' and 'treatment burden'. Women perceived less 'treatment burden' than did men. Young people aged 6-13 years perceived less 'treatment burden' than did their parents. A significant interaction occurred between child/parent report and gender for 'emotional state' and 'eating disturbances'. The CFQ-R found differences between inpatients and outpatients and between younger and older paediatric patients with CF, and between parent and child perceptions of QOL.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 92 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 13%
Student > Bachelor 11 12%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 18 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 28 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 23 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 17 18%
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 11 January 2017.
All research outputs
#8,535,684
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Ambulatory Child Health
#626
of 1,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,154
of 104,485 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambulatory Child Health
#5
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,578 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 104,485 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 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.