↓ Skip to main content

Retrospective evaluation versus population norms for the measurement of baseline health status

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, June 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
50 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
Retrospective evaluation versus population norms for the measurement of baseline health status
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, June 2012
DOI 10.1186/1477-7525-10-68
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Patient recall or the application of population norms are commonly used methods to estimate (unobservable) health status prior to acute-onset illness or injury; however, both measures are potentially subject to bias. This article reports tests of the validity of both approaches, and discusses the implications for reporting changes in health-related quality of life following acute-onset illness or injury.

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 50 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 %
Sweden 1 2%
Unknown 49 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 12%
Other 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Researcher 4 8%
Lecturer 2 4%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 22 44%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 25 50%
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 15 June 2012.
All research outputs
#21,622,080
of 26,542,140 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1,842
of 2,309 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#143,871
of 183,045 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#16
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,542,140 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,309 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 183,045 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.