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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
How Can We Improve Disease Education in People with Gout?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Rheumatology Reports, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11926-018-0720-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Theodore R. Fields, Adena Batterman |
| Abstract |
Gout management is currently suboptimal despite excellent available therapy. Gout patient education has been shown to enhance medication adherence and self-management, but needs improvement. We explored the literature on gout patient education including gaps in gout patient knowledge; use of written materials; in-person individual and group sessions; education via nurses, pharmacists, or multi-disciplinary groups; and use of phone, web-based, mobile health app, and text messaging educational efforts. Nurse-led interventions have shown significant improvement in reaching urate goals. Pharmacist-led programs have likewise succeeded, but to a lesser degree. A multi-disciplinary approach has shown feasibility. Needs-assessments, patient questionnaires, and psychosocial evaluations can enhance targeted education. An interactive and patient-centered approach can enhance gout educational interventions. Optimal programs will assess for and address educational needs related to knowledge gaps, health literacy, race, gender, socio-economic status, and level of social support. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 | 33% |
| Unknown | 4 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 121 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 8% |
| Researcher | 9 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 24 | 20% |
| Unknown | 43 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 13% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 8 | 7% |
| Psychology | 6 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 15 | 12% |
| Unknown | 46 | 38% |
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 19 April 2024.
All research outputs
#2,839,242
of 25,750,437 outputs
Outputs from Current Rheumatology Reports
#98
of 763 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,625
of 349,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Rheumatology Reports
#4
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,750,437 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 763 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 349,613 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.