| Title |
Psychological Aspects of Cardiac Care and Rehabilitation: Time to Wake Up to Sleep?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Cardiology Reports, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11886-015-0667-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jonathan Gallagher, Giulia Parenti, Frank Doyle |
| Abstract |
Psychological and psychosocial factors have long been linked to cardiovascular disease. These psychosocial factors, including low socioeconomic status, social support/isolation, stress and distress, personality, and sleep disturbance increase risk of cardiovascular events and negatively impact quality of life. These factors may have direct effects on cardiovascular disease via immune or neuroendocrine pathways, or more indirect effects, by, for example, limiting adherence to recommended therapies and cardiac rehabilitation. Most psychosocial risk factors can be assessed relatively easily using standardised tools. Sleep disturbance, in particular, is gaining evidence for its importance and may be crucial to address. While the management of certain psychosocial risk factors is an ethical requirement for care and improves quality of life, unfortunately there is little evidence that such strategies impact on 'hard' endpoints such as recurrent myocardial infarction. A comprehensive biopsychosocial approach to management of these psychosocial factors is required to maximise the benefits patients derive from cardiac care. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
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 | 18 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 8% |
| Researcher | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 15 | 15% |
| Unknown | 26 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 24 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 15% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 5% |
| Sports and Recreations | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 8% |
| Unknown | 29 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 14 September 2016.
All research outputs
#14,239,950
of 22,830,751 outputs
Outputs from Current Cardiology Reports
#553
of 999 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,970
of 283,771 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Cardiology Reports
#9
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,830,751 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 999 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 283,771 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.