↓ Skip to main content

General practitioners' experience of the chronic fatigue syndrome.

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, August 1991
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
wikipedia
7 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
Title
General practitioners' experience of the chronic fatigue syndrome.
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, August 1991
Pubmed ID
Authors

D O Ho-Yen, I McNamara

Abstract

In order to examine the prevalence of patients with symptoms fulfilling the criteria for the chronic fatigue syndrome an extensive survey was carried out of general practitioners on 10 local government lists in two health boards (91% response rate). At the same time practitioners' attitudes to the syndrome and their experience in terms of workload and the characteristics of patients affected were documented. The majority of general practitioners (71%) accepted the existence of chronic fatigue syndrome, but 22% were undecided. The doctors reported a prevalence among their patients of 1.3 per 1000 patients (range 0.3-2.7 for the 10 areas) with a peak in the 30-44 years age group. Female patients were more commonly affected than males (sex ratio 1.8:1.0), but the severity of illness and the use of general practitioner's time was the same among male and female patients. Patients in occupations where they were exposed to infection were affected (teachers and students, 22% of sample; hospital workers, 7%), but many patients were unskilled (8%) and skilled workers (9%). Patients suffering from the chronic fatigue syndrome appear to be a real and distinct group for general practitioners and may represent a substantial part of the workload of doctors in particular areas.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 22%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Researcher 2 11%
Student > Master 2 11%
Professor 1 6%
Other 3 17%
Unknown 4 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 4 22%
Psychology 4 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 17%
Mathematics 1 6%
Social Sciences 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 4 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 18 March 2024.
All research outputs
#7,125,643
of 25,734,859 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#2,467
of 4,932 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,482
of 16,182 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,734,859 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,932 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.7. 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 16,182 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them