↓ Skip to main content

Validity Testing of the Quality of Life Scale, Swedish Version: Focus Group Interviews of Women with Fibromyalgia

Overview of attention for article published in Occupational Therapy International, May 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 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
Validity Testing of the Quality of Life Scale, Swedish Version: Focus Group Interviews of Women with Fibromyalgia
Published in
Occupational Therapy International, May 2012
DOI 10.1002/oti.1329
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gunilla M. Liedberg, Linda L. Eddy, Carol S. Burckhardt

Abstract

Focus group interviews were used to examine validity of the Quality of Life Scale, Swedish version (QOLS-S) for use with women with fibromyalgia. Five interviews with 18 women with fibromyalgia were completed. The opening question was "What does quality of life mean to you?" Later, participants were asked to respond to questions about the specific domains and items in the QOLS-S. The transcribed interviews were analysed, and categories were identified. Opinions concerning domains and items in the QOLS-S were linked to domains of the QOLS-S. Four categories emerged from the opening question: finances, to be an active person and participate in society, relations with others, and health. Overall, the women's perceptions of quality of life were congruent with the domains of QOLS-S. However, further attention should be given to the translation of certain items and apparent overlaps in some items indicate that they can be combined. Also, the instrument needs to be scrutinized from a cultural perspective because some items in the "social, community and civic activities" domain were not endorsed by the participants.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 3%
Australia 1 3%
Unknown 38 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 15%
Student > Master 5 13%
Student > Postgraduate 4 10%
Lecturer 4 10%
Researcher 3 8%
Other 15 38%
Unknown 3 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 12 30%
Psychology 9 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 20%
Social Sciences 5 13%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 2 5%
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 05 May 2012.
All research outputs
#16,900,730
of 24,851,605 outputs
Outputs from Occupational Therapy International
#173
of 295 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,393
of 167,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Occupational Therapy International
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,851,605 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 295 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 167,853 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.