| Title |
Patient Activation is Inconsistently Associated with Positive Health Behaviors Among Obese Safety Net Patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10903-015-0285-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mona AuYoung, Ninez A. Ponce, O. Kenrik Duru, Arturo Vargas Bustamante, Carol M. Mangione, Hector P. Rodriguez |
| Abstract |
We examine the association of patient activation and physical activity and fruit and vegetable consumption among obese safety net patients. Adult obese patients (n = 198) of three safety net clinics completed a survey assessing patient activation, physical activity, fruit and vegetable consumption, care experiences, and health status. Multivariate logistic regression models incrementally assessed the adjusted relation of patient activation and physical activity and fruit and vegetable consumption. In adjusted analyses, higher activated patients had higher odds [Odds ratio (OR) 1.58, p < 0.01] of consuming fruits and vegetables daily than less activated patients. There was no significant association between patient activation and regular physical activity. Engaging in regular physical activity appears to be difficult, even for highly activated patients. In contrast, additional fruit and vegetable consumption is a relatively easier change. Patient activation was inconsistently associated with two positive health behaviors among obese safety net patients. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 49 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 22% |
| Unknown | 16 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 8% |
| Psychology | 4 | 8% |
| Engineering | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 22 | 44% |
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 October 2015.
All research outputs
#16,188,009
of 23,867,274 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health
#913
of 1,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,599
of 278,302 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health
#17
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,867,274 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 1,261 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 278,302 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.