↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
277 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.
Article details
Title
Multiple Risk Factor Counseling to Promote Heart‐healthy Lifestyles in the Chest Pain Observation Unit: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Published in
Academic Emergency Medicine, July 2017
DOI 10.1111/acem.13231
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Admission to the chest pain observation unit (CPOU) may be an advantageous time for patients to consider heart-healthy lifestyle changes while undergoing diagnostic evaluation to rule out myocardial ischemia. The aim of this pragmatic trial was to assess the effectiveness of a multiple risk factor intervention in changing CPOU patients' health beliefs and readiness to change health behaviors. A secondary aim was to obtain preliminary estimates of the intervention's effect on diet, physical activity, and smoking. We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a moderate intensity counseling intervention that aimed to build motivation to change and problem-solving skills in 140 adult patients with at least one modifiable cardiovascular risk factor (CRF) who were admitted to the CPOU of an academic emergency department (ED) with symptoms of possible acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Study patients were randomly assigned to full counseling (face-to-face cardiovascular risk assessment and personalized counseling on nutrition, physical activity, and smoking cessation in the ED, plus two telephone follow-up sessions) or minimal counseling (brief instruction (<5 minutes) on benefits of modifying cardiovascular risk factors) by a cardiac rehabilitation specialist. We measured Health Belief Model constructs for ischemic heart disease, stage of change, and self-reported CRF-related behaviors (diet, exercise, and smoking) during 6-month follow-up using previously validated measures. We used linear mixed models and logistic regression (with generalized estimating equations) to compare continuous and dichotomous behavioral outcomes across treatment arms, respectively. Approximately 20% more patients in the full counseling arm reported having received counseling on diet and physical activity during CPOU admission, compared to the minimal counseling arm; a similar proportion of patients in both counseling arms reported having received advice or assistance in quitting smoking. There were no significant differences between treatment arms for any cardiovascular health beliefs, readiness to change, or CRF-related behaviors during longitudinal follow-up. In Ssecondary analyses in both treatment arms combined, however,, patients showed significant differences between follow-up and baseline measurements: increases in the perceived benefits of improving CRF-related behaviors (27.7 vs. 26.6 on a scale from 7-35, p=.0001), and increased readiness to change dietary behavior and physical activity during follow-up: intake of saturated fat (83 vs. 49%), readiness to change fruit and vegetable consumption (83 vs 56%), and readiness to perform regular exercise (34 vs. 14%) at 6-months and baseline, respectively (p<.0001 for all comparisons in both treatment arms combined). A multiple risk factor intervention that focused on increasing motivation to change and problem-solving skills did not significantly improve behavioral outcomes, compared to minimal counseling. Patients admitted to the CPOU demonstrated sustained changes in several cardiovascular health beliefs and risk-related behaviors during follow-up; this provides further evidence that the CPOU visit is a "teachable moment" for cardiovascular risk reduction. Future studies should evaluate the effectiveness of ED-initiated counseling interventions to engage patients in changing cardiovascular risk behaviors, in coordination with primary care. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 277 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 277 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 12%
Student > Bachelor 27 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 8%
Researcher 19 7%
Other 15 5%
Other 37 13%
Unknown 123 44%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 52 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 36 13%
Sports and Recreations 9 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 3%
Neuroscience 6 2%
Other 31 11%
Unknown 136 49%
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 13 December 2017.
All research outputs
#18,574,314
of 27,776,330 outputs
Outputs from Academic Emergency Medicine
#3,562
of 4,171 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,633
of 333,159 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Academic Emergency Medicine
#28
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,776,330 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,171 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 333,159 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.