↓ Skip to main content

Is Social Support Associated With Upper Extremity Disability?

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
103 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
Is Social Support Associated With Upper Extremity Disability?
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, May 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11999-016-4892-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sjoerd P. F. T. Nota, Silke A. Spit, Thijs C. H. Oosterhoff, Michiel G. J. S. Hageman, David C. Ring, Ana-Maria Vranceanu

Abstract

Pain intensity and disability correlate with psychosocial factors such as depression and pain interference (the degree to which pain interferes with activities of daily living) as much or more than pathophysiology in upper extremity illness. However, other factors like emotional support (perception of being cared for and valued as a person), instrumental support (perception of availability of tangible assistance when needed), positive psychosocial impact (perception and focus on the positive side of a difficult situation, sometimes characterized as posttraumatic growth, benefit-finding, or meaning making), also might be associated with disability in patients with upper extremity orthopaedic illness. This is the first published study, to our knowledge, addressing the potential association of emotional support, instrumental support, and positive psychosocial illness impact with disability in patients with upper extremity illness. We asked: (1) Is there a correlation between the QuickDASH and the Patient-reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS(®)) emotional support Computer Adaptive Testing (CAT)? (2) Is there a correlation between the QuickDASH and PROMIS(®) instrumental support CAT? (3) Is there a correlation between the QuickDASH and PROMIS(®) positive psychosocial illness impact CAT? (4) Among the PROMIS(®) measures of depression, emotional support, instrumental support, positive illness impact, and pain interference, which accounts for the most variance in QuickDASH scores? One hundred ninety-three patients with upper extremity illness (55% women; average age, 51 ± 18 years) of 213 approached (91% recruitment rate) completed the QuickDASH, and five different PROMIS(®) CATs: pain interference (the degree to which pain interferes with accomplishing one's goals), depression, emotional support, psychosocial illness impact, and instrumental support. We recruited patients from the practice of three surgeons in hand service of the department of orthopaedic surgery at a major urban university hospital. Pearson Product Moment Correlations showed that emotional support (r = -0.18; p = 0.014) and instrumental support (r = -0.19; p = 0.008) were weakly and inversely associated with the QuickDASH), while positive psychosocial illness impact was moderately and inversely associated with the QuickDASH (r = -0.36; p < 0.001). In multivariable analyses, pain interference, but not the social support measures, was the only psychosocial factor associated with the QuickDASH and alone explained 66% of variance. Emotional support, instrumental support and positive psychosocial illness impact are all individually associated with disability to a small degree, but pain interference (the degree to which pain interferes with accomplishing one's goals) has the strongest influence on magnitude of disability. Level 1, prognostic study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 103 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 17%
Student > Master 16 16%
Researcher 11 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 4%
Other 13 13%
Unknown 33 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 15%
Psychology 6 6%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Neuroscience 3 3%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 41 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 08 December 2017.
All research outputs
#14,277,392
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#4,329
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,603
of 326,216 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#56
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,298 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 326,216 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.