↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of Quality of Life in Patients with and without Heart Failure in Primary Care

Overview of attention for article published in Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 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
Evaluation of Quality of Life in Patients with and without Heart Failure in Primary Care
Published in
Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia, August 2017
DOI 10.5935/abc.20170123
Pubmed ID
Authors

Antonio José Lagoeiro Jorge, Maria Luiza Garcia Rosa, Dayse Mary da Silva Correia, Wolney de Andrade Martins, Diana Maria Martinez Ceron, Leonardo Chaves Ferreira Coelho, William Shinji Nobre Soussume, Hye Chung Kang, Samuel Datum Moscavitch, Evandro Tinoco Mesquita

Abstract

Heart failure (HF) is a major public health issue with implications on health-related quality of life (HRQL). To compare HRQL, estimated by the Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), in patients with and without HF in the community. Cross-sectional study including 633 consecutive individuals aged 45 years or older, registered in primary care. The subjects were selected from a random sample representative of the population studied. They were divided into two groups: group I, HF patients (n = 59); and group II, patients without HF (n = 574). The HF group was divided into HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF - n = 35) and HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF - n = 24). Patients without HF had a mean SF-36 score significantly greater than those with HF (499.8 ± 139.1 vs 445.4 ± 123.8; p = 0.008). Functional capacity - ability and difficulty to perform common activities of everyday life - was significantly worse (p < 0.0001) in patients with HF independently of sex and age. There was no difference between HFpEF and HFrEF. Patients with HF had low quality of life regardless of the syndrome presentation (HFpEF or HFrEF phenotype). Quality of life evaluation in primary care could help identify patients who would benefit from a proactive care program with more emphasis on multidisciplinary and social support. (Arq Bras Cardiol. 2017; [online].ahead print, PP.0-0). A insuficiência cardíaca (IC) é um importante problema de saúde pública, com implicações na qualidade de vida relacionada à saúde (QVRS). Comparar a QVRS, estimada através do Questionário SF-36 (Short-Form Health Survey), em pacientes com e sem IC na comunidade. Estudo transversal incluindo 633 indivíduos consecutivos com idade igual ou superior a 45 anos, registrados na atenção primária e selecionados de uma amostra aleatória representativa da população estudada. Foram divididos em dois grupos: grupo I, pacientes com IC (n = 59); e grupo II, pacientes sem IC (n = 574). O grupo I foi dividido em pacientes com IC com fração de ejeção preservada (ICFEP - n = 35) e pacientes com IC com fração de ejeção reduzida (ICFER - n = 24). Pacientes sem IC tiveram um escore médio do SF-36 significativamente maior do que aqueles com IC (499,8 ± 139,1 vs 445,4 ± 123,8; p = 0,008). A capacidade funcional - habilidade e dificuldade para realizar atividades comuns da vida diária - foi significativamente pior (p < 0,0001) nos pacientes com IC independentemente de sexo e idade. Não houve diferença entre ICFEP e ICFER. Pacientes com IC mostraram baixa qualidade de vida a despeito da apresentação da síndrome (fenótipo ICFEP ou ICFER). A avaliação da qualidade de vida na atenção primária poderia auxiliar a identificar pacientes que se beneficiariam de um programa de atenção à saúde pró-ativo com maior ênfase em suporte multidisciplinar e social. (Arq Bras Cardiol. 2017; [online].ahead print, PP.0-0).

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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 14%
Researcher 2 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Other 1 4%
Student > Master 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 17 61%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Chemical Engineering 1 4%
Unknown 18 64%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 21 September 2017.
All research outputs
#16,725,651
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia
#456
of 1,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,037
of 327,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia
#1
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,210 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 327,060 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.