| Title |
Support available for and perceived priorities of people with polymyalgia rheumatica and giant cell arteritis: results of the PMRGCAuk members’ survey 2017
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Rheumatology, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10067-018-4220-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sara Muller, Anne O’Brien, Toby Helliwell, Charles A. Hay, Kate Gilbert, Christian D. Mallen, Kathryn Busby, on behalf of PMRGCAuk |
| Abstract |
Polymyalgia rheumatica and giant cell arteritis are relatively common, but under research inflammatory rheumatological conditions. This survey aimed to ascertain the matters in which patients feel they need support with these conditions and appraise how the Charity PMRGCAuk currently supports these needs and could do so in the future. PMRGCAuk members (n = 910) were invited to complete an on-line survey. The survey requested the respondent's history of PMR and or GCA, their perceived priorities for support for people with PMR and or GCA and views on the services already provided by the Charity. A total of 209 people completed the survey. Less than 24% had heard of either PMR or GCA before their diagnosis. Priorities in supporting people with PMR and or GCA included: being on and tapering off glucocorticoids (76.6%), specifically, length of treatment and the risks versus benefits and managing side effects. Respondents generally reported satisfaction with the services currently provided by PMRGCAuk. The support provided by PMRGCAuk is very helpful to members and fills an important gap in provision for people with PMR and or GCA. The areas in which the greatest proportions of participants requested support do not have an evidence base to underpin them. It is incumbent on the research community to address patients' concerns and provide an evidence base where it is required by those affected. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 6 | 67% |
| France | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 2 | 22% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 25% |
| Researcher | 3 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 5% |
| Librarian | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 6 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 35% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 15% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 5% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 7 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 29 November 2019.
All research outputs
#4,579,098
of 23,098,660 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Rheumatology
#719
of 3,049 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,635
of 329,833 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Rheumatology
#14
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,098,660 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,049 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 329,833 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 73% 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 has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.