↓ Skip to main content

A mixed methods evaluation of medical tattooing for people who have experienced a burn injury

Overview of attention for article published in Scars, Burns & Healing, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
21 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
A mixed methods evaluation of medical tattooing for people who have experienced a burn injury
Published in
Scars, Burns & Healing, July 2018
DOI 10.1177/2059513118784721
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rebecca Yeates, Ezinna Rospigliosi, Andrew R Thompson

Abstract

There are no existing studies examining the psychological merits of using facial medical tattooing (MT) following burn injury. This study evaluated an MT service supported by The Katie Piper Foundation. It examined accessibility, satisfaction and whether there were improvements in quality of life (QoL). Thirty-five service-users were invited to participate in a cross-sectional online survey. Twenty-five (71%) responded (24 women; age range = 21-64 years), and of these five (4 women; age range = 26-59 years) also participated in telephone interviews, which were analysed using descriptive thematic analysis. The service was largely considered easy to access (22/25) and convenient (25/25). Most service-users (22/25) were satisfied with the results of MT. Some areas of dissatisfaction were described, by a minority of service-users, including: the procedure being painful (1/25); the tattoo being below expectation or fading over time (3/25). The majority reported that MT had improved confidence (22/25); mood (19/25); and ability to socialise (19/25). The procedure improved some service-users' ability to carry out essential activities (14/25) and enjoyable activities (16/25). The qualitative responses provided during interview, indicated that all respondents found the procedure useful to their adjustment, although a minority (3/5) found it painful and also commented on fading (1/5). All described MT as contributing to a sense of increased normality. MT had the largest impact on emotional wellbeing and interpersonal domains of QoL. MT services should now improve awareness of the procedure, lobby for further support to provide wider access to the procedure, and routinely use measures assessing psychosocial outcomes.

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 5 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 21 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 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 19%
Other 3 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 14%
Student > Master 2 10%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 7 33%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 5 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 19%
Psychology 3 14%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 10%
Unknown 7 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 28 August 2026.
All research outputs
#7,337,017
of 34,237,651 outputs
Outputs from Scars, Burns & Healing
#21
of 71 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,845
of 372,733 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scars, Burns & Healing
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,237,651 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 71 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 372,733 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them