↓ Skip to main content

Comorbidity health pathways in heart failure patients: A sequences-of-regressions analysis using cross-sectional data from 10,575 patients in the Swedish Heart Failure Registry

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS Medicine, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
twitter
22 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
79 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
150 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
Comorbidity health pathways in heart failure patients: A sequences-of-regressions analysis using cross-sectional data from 10,575 patients in the Swedish Heart Failure Registry
Published in
PLOS Medicine, March 2018
DOI 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002540
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claire A. Lawson, Ivonne Solis-Trapala, Ulf Dahlstrom, Mamas Mamas, Tiny Jaarsma, Umesh T. Kadam, Anna Stromberg

Abstract

Optimally treated heart failure (HF) patients often have persisting symptoms and poor health-related quality of life. Comorbidities are common, but little is known about their impact on these factors, and guideline-driven HF care remains focused on cardiovascular status. The following hypotheses were tested: (i) comorbidities are associated with more severe symptoms and functional limitations and subsequently worse patient-rated health in HF, and (ii) these patterns of association differ among selected comorbidities. The Swedish Heart Failure Registry (SHFR) is a national population-based register of HF patients admitted to >85% of hospitals in Sweden or attending outpatient clinics. This study included 10,575 HF patients with patient-rated health recorded during first registration in the SHFR (1 February 2008 to 1 November 2013). An a priori health model and sequences-of-regressions analysis were used to test associations among comorbidities and patient-reported symptoms, functional limitations, and patient-rated health. Patient-rated health measures included the EuroQol-5 dimension (EQ-5D) questionnaire and the EuroQol visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS). EQ-VAS score ranges from 0 (worst health) to 100 (best health). Patient-rated health declined progressively from patients with no comorbidities (mean EQ-VAS score, 66) to patients with cardiovascular comorbidities (mean EQ-VAS score, 62) to patients with non-cardiovascular comorbidities (mean EQ-VAS score, 59). The relationships among cardiovascular comorbidities and patient-rated health were explained by their associations with anxiety or depression (atrial fibrillation, odds ratio [OR] 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.27; ischemic heart disease [IHD], OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.32) and with pain (IHD, OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.38). Associations of non-cardiovascular comorbidities with patient-rated health were explained by their associations with shortness of breath (diabetes, OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.32; chronic kidney disease [CKD, OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.38; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD], OR 95% CI 1.84, 1.62 to 2.10) and with fatigue (diabetes, OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.42; CKD, OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.38; COPD, OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.50 to 1.91). There were direct associations between all symptoms and patient-rated health, and indirect associations via functional limitations. Anxiety or depression had the strongest association with functional limitations (OR 10.03, 95% CI 5.16 to 19.50) and patient-rated health (mean difference in EQ-VAS score, -18.68, 95% CI -23.22 to -14.14). HF optimizing therapies did not influence these associations. Key limitations of the study include the cross-sectional design and unclear generalisability to other populations. Further prospective HF studies are required to test the consistency of the relationships and their implications for health. Identification of distinct comorbidity health pathways in HF could provide the evidence for individualised person-centred care that targets specific comorbidities and associated symptoms.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 150 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 150 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 14%
Researcher 17 11%
Student > Bachelor 15 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 10%
Other 7 5%
Other 14 9%
Unknown 61 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 23%
Psychology 10 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 6%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Other 21 14%
Unknown 67 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 43. 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 April 2018.
All research outputs
#957,359
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from PLOS Medicine
#1,459
of 5,161 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,530
of 344,729 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS Medicine
#35
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,161 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 77.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 344,729 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.