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 |
Instruments of health literacy used in nursing studies with hypertensive elderly
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Revista Gaúcha de Enfermagem, December 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1590/1983-1447.2014.04.45139 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ana Larissa Gomes Machado, Francisca Elisângela Teixeira Lima, Tahissa Frota Cavalcante, Thelma Leite de Araújo, Neiva Francenely Cunha Vieira |
| Abstract |
This study aimed to analyze nursing research regarding the instruments used to evaluate health literacy in elderly hypertensive patients. This is an integrative literature review done in the databases LILACS, PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and Cochrane, in June 2013. The articles, electronically available, were selected for full-text review by nurses, who assessed health literacy of elderly with hypertension. Eight studies were selected for analysis and four different instruments were used in the research. The instruments were developed according to a methodology and they were all designed to evaluate the abilities of elderly regarding reading, numeracy, pronunciation and recognition of some health-related words. The nursing research analyzed in this study revealed the gaps in care related to measures aimed to increase patient's involvement in decision-making. Also, the instruments used for measuring health literacy showed limitations, and there is no gold standard test. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 45 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 11% |
| Researcher | 4 | 9% |
| Librarian | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 9 | 20% |
| Unknown | 11 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 31% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 22% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 7% |
| Sports and Recreations | 2 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 11 | 24% |
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 April 2015.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Revista Gaúcha de Enfermagem
#144
of 236 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#274,290
of 369,146 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista Gaúcha de Enfermagem
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 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 236 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. 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 369,146 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.