↓ Skip to main content

Accuracy of the defining characteristics of the nursing diagnosis for fatigue in women under radiotherapy

Overview of attention for article published in Revista Brasileira de Enfermagem, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 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
Accuracy of the defining characteristics of the nursing diagnosis for fatigue in women under radiotherapy
Published in
Revista Brasileira de Enfermagem, January 2018
DOI 10.1590/0034-7167-2017-0549
Pubmed ID
Authors

Suzy Ramos Rocha, Míria Conceição Lavinas Santos, Marcos Venícios de Oliveira Lopes, Andrea Bezerra Rodrigues, Vanessa Emille Carvalho de Sousa, Caroline Batista de Queiroz Aquino, Cláudia Rayanna Silva Mendes

Abstract

To evaluate the accuracy of the defining characteristics of the nursing diagnosis for "fatigue in women with breast cancer under radiotherapy". Study of diagnostic accuracy, with cross-sectional design, performed in 130 women with breast cancer under radiation treatment. A data collection instrument was used to evaluate clinical socio-demographics and to investigate the presence or absence of defining characteristics for fatigue. The latent class analysis model was applied to assess accuracy measurements of the characteristics identified. Fatigue diagnosis was present in 21.9% of the women. The characteristic which showed the highest sensitivity was "Impaired capacity in maintaining the usual level of physical activity", while "Impaired capacity in maintaining usual routines" and "Lack of interest about the surrounding environment" presented greater specificity. Accurate diagnostics allow devising an action plan directed to the patients' real needs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 18%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Researcher 3 7%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Other 2 5%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 19 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 10 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 9%
Psychology 3 7%
Unspecified 1 2%
Linguistics 1 2%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 19 43%
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 07 July 2018.
All research outputs
#20,663,600
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Revista Brasileira de Enfermagem
#454
of 738 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#343,505
of 449,583 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista Brasileira de Enfermagem
#36
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 738 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.9. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 449,583 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.