↓ Skip to main content

Factors associated with low physical activity in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a cross‐sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 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
Factors associated with low physical activity in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a cross‐sectional study
Published in
Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, February 2015
DOI 10.1111/scs.12200
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kristina Tödt, Elisabeth Skargren, Per Jakobsson, Kersti Theander, Mitra Unosson

Abstract

Low physical activity (PA) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with poor prognosis. In addition, physical activity seems to be low early in the disease. The aim of this study was to describe the level of PA in patients with stable COPD and to explore factors associated with low PA, with a focus on fatigue, symptom burden and body composition METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, 101 patients (52 women) with COPD were classified having low, moderate or high PA according to the International Physical Activity Questionnaire - Short. Fatigue, dyspnoea, depression and anxiety, symptom burden, body composition, physical capacity (lung function, exercise capacity, muscle strength), exacerbation rate and systemic inflammation were assessed. A multiple logistic regression was used to identify independent associations with low PA.

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 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

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

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 21%
Student > Bachelor 16 16%
Researcher 12 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 17 17%
Unknown 22 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 22%
Sports and Recreations 8 8%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Psychology 4 4%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 26 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 06 February 2015.
All research outputs
#16,669,623
of 24,525,936 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences
#537
of 816 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#219,918
of 361,602 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,525,936 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 816 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 361,602 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.