↓ Skip to main content

Correlates of physical function among stroke survivors: an examination of the 2015 BRFSS

Overview of attention for article published in Public Health (Elsevier), December 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 (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
77 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
Correlates of physical function among stroke survivors: an examination of the 2015 BRFSS
Published in
Public Health (Elsevier), December 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.puhe.2017.11.007
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

To identify the characteristics of stroke survivors with poor physical function. Cross-sectional. Secondary data analyses were performed with the 2015 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data set. Unadjusted and adjusted logistic regressions were employed to determine the correlates of poor physical function in stroke survivors. Self-reported difficulty with walking and stairs was used as a proxy for physical function. Characteristics such as age, race, sex, difficulty doing errands alone, difficult dressing or bathing alone, health care coverage, time since last routine checkup, and reported financial difficulty with regard to health care access were examined as contributing factors to physical function. Approximately half of all stroke survivors reported having difficulty with walking and stairs (50.3%). As expected, the odds of reporting difficulty with walking and stairs were higher among stroke survivors aged 40 years and above (p < 0.0001). Interestingly, black/African American and multiracial respondents had higher odds of reporting difficulty with walking and stairs than whites, whereas Hispanic respondents had lower odds of reporting difficulty with walking and stairs than whites (p < 0.0001). Further analyses revealed that the disparity of physical function was preserved (p < 0.0001) after adjusting for age, race, sex, education level, family income, marital status, employment status, health insurance status, affordability of healthcare, and length of time from last doctor's visit. There were racial/ethnic disparities in physical function. Specifically, blacks/ African Americans had a 5.6% increase in the odds of reporting difficulty with walking and stairs than whites. Moreover, Hispanics reported significantly fewer problems than whites. Overall, similar sociocultural patterns in non-stroke and stroke populations were observed in this study.

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 profiles of 3 X users 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 77 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 77 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 16%
Researcher 9 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 10%
Student > Master 7 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 5%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 27 35%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 12 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 13%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Neuroscience 4 5%
Sports and Recreations 3 4%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 33 43%
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 23 March 2018.
All research outputs
#22,960,233
of 34,376,207 outputs
Outputs from Public Health (Elsevier)
#2,891
of 4,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#308,000
of 494,131 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Public Health (Elsevier)
#30
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,376,207 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 4,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 494,131 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 67 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 52% of its contemporaries.