↓ Skip to main content

Pattern Versus Change: Community-Based Dyadic Heart Failure Self-Care

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Nursing Research, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
41 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
Pattern Versus Change: Community-Based Dyadic Heart Failure Self-Care
Published in
Clinical Nursing Research, January 2017
DOI 10.1177/1054773816688817
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

It is imperative that dyadic heart failure (HF) self-care be carefully examined so we can develop interventions which improve patient outcomes. The purpose of this study was to qualitatively examine how patient/informal caregiver dyads mutually engage in managing the patient's HF at home. Twenty-seven dyads were interviewed using a theoretically derived interview guide. All interviews were digitally recorded and professionally transcribed, and iterative thematic analysis was conducted. Three descriptive themes emerged-Mutual engagement in self-care involves maintaining established patterns of engagement across the life course of the relationship, changing patterns according to whether it is day-to-day care or symptom management, and mobilizing the help of a third party as consultant. These themes reveal the dyadic conundrum-whether to change or remain the same in the face of a dynamic and progressive condition like HF. The themes suggest potential targets for intervention-interventions focused on the relationship or caregiver activation.

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 2 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 41 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 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 17%
Student > Master 5 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Lecturer 2 5%
Professor 2 5%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 16 39%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 11 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 15%
Social Sciences 4 10%
Chemical Engineering 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 16 39%
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 06 February 2019.
All research outputs
#15,489,831
of 23,018,998 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Nursing Research
#228
of 410 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#257,802
of 422,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Nursing Research
#5
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,018,998 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 410 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 422,074 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 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.