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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Self-efficacy and pain acceptance as mediators of the relationship between pain and performance of valued life activities in women and men with rheumatoid arthritis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Rehabilitation, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1177/0269215516646166 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Inger Ahlstrand, Sharmila Vaz, Torbjörn Falkmer, Ingrid Thyberg, Mathilda Björk |
| Abstract |
To study whether personal factors (self-efficacy and pain acceptance) mediate the relationship between pain and performance of valued life activities in persons with rheumatoid arthritis. Persons with rheumatoid arthritis for at least four years (n = 737; 73% women) answered a questionnaire measuring self-efficacy, pain acceptance, performance of valued life activities, and self-rated pain. Relationships among these constructs were explored using univariate and multivariate analyses. Structural equation modelling was then used to examine the mediational role of personal factors on the relationship between pain and performance of valued life activities. A direct negative association between pain and performance of valued life activities was identified (Beta = .34, P < .001). This suggests that people with rheumatoid arthritis who had higher levels of pain has increased difficulties in performing valued life activities. Self-efficacy and activity engagement component of pain acceptance mediated the relationship between pain and performance of valued life activities, however the pain willingness component of pain acceptance did not influence participation in valued life activities. These findings highlight the importance of considering personal factors, such as pain acceptance and self-efficacy, in facilitating participation in valued life activities. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 84 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 7% |
| Researcher | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 15% |
| Unknown | 24 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 17% |
| Psychology | 14 | 17% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 11% |
| Unknown | 25 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 24 November 2022.
All research outputs
#2,371,116
of 23,179,757 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Rehabilitation
#298
of 1,883 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,776
of 299,693 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Rehabilitation
#5
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,179,757 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,883 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 299,693 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.