↓ Skip to main content

The Effects of Expressive Writing on Lung Function, Quality of Life, Medication Use, and Symptoms in Adults With Asthma

Overview of attention for article published in Biopsychosocial Science and Medicine (BSAM), May 2015
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
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
138 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
The Effects of Expressive Writing on Lung Function, Quality of Life, Medication Use, and Symptoms in Adults With Asthma
Published in
Biopsychosocial Science and Medicine (BSAM), May 2015
DOI 10.1097/psy.0000000000000166
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Asthma is a chronic condition affecting 300 million people worldwide. Management involves adherence to pharmacological treatments such as corticosteroids and β-agonists, but residual symptoms persist. As asthma symptoms are exacerbated by stress, one possible adjunct to pharmacological treatment is expressive writing (EW). EW involves the disclosure of traumatic experiences which is thought to facilitate cognitive and emotional processing, helping to reduce physiological stress associated with inhibiting emotions. A previous trial reported short-term improvements in lung function. This study aimed to assess whether EW can improve lung function, quality of life, symptoms, and medication use in patients with asthma. Adults (18-45 years) diagnosed as having asthma requiring regular inhaled corticosteroids were recruited from 28 general practices in South East England (n = 146). In this double-blind randomized controlled trial, participants were allocated either EW or nonemotional writing instructions and asked to write for 20 minutes for 3 consecutive days. Lung function (forced expired volume in 1 second [FEV1]% predicted), quality of life (Mark's Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire), asthma symptoms (Wasserfallen Symptom Score Questionnaire), and medication use (inhaled corticosteroids and β-agonist) were recorded at baseline, 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Hierarchical linear modeling indicated no significant main effects between time and condition on any outcomes. Post hoc analyses revealed that EW improved lung function by 14% for 12 months for participants with less than 80% FEV1% predicted at baseline (β = 0.93, p = .002) whereas no improvement was observed in the control condition (β = 0.10, p = .667). EW seems to be beneficial for patients with moderate asthma (<80% FEV1% predicted). Future studies of EW require stratification of patients by asthma severity. ISRCTN82986307.

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 4 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 138 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 138 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 15%
Student > Bachelor 17 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 9%
Researcher 11 8%
Other 24 17%
Unknown 39 28%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 29 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 28 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 4%
Arts and Humanities 4 3%
Other 13 9%
Unknown 49 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 16 February 2016.
All research outputs
#22,203,531
of 34,559,526 outputs
Outputs from Biopsychosocial Science and Medicine (BSAM)
#2,161
of 2,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,601
of 307,381 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biopsychosocial Science and Medicine (BSAM)
#24
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,559,526 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.3. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 307,381 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.