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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Age and gender effects on the prevalence of poor sleep quality in the adult population
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Gaceta Sanitaria, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.gaceta.2016.05.013 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Juan J. Madrid-Valero, José M. Martínez-Selva, Bruno Ribeiro do Couto, Juan F. Sánchez-Romera, Juan R. Ordoñana |
| Abstract |
Sleep quality has a significant impact on health and quality of life and is affected, among other factors, by age and sex. However, the prevalence of problems in this area in the general population is not well known. Therefore, our objective was to study the prevalence and main characteristics of sleep quality in an adult population sample. 2,144 subjects aged between 43 and 71 years belonging to the Murcia (Spain) Twin Registry. Sleep quality was measured by self-report through the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). Logistic regression models were used to analyse the results. The prevalence of poor sleep quality stands at 38.2%. Univariate logistic regression analyses showed that women were almost twice as likely as men (OR: 1.88; 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 1.54 to 2.28) to have poor quality of sleep. Age was directly and significantly associated with a low quality of sleep (OR: 1.05; 95%CI: 1.03 to 1.06). The prevalence of poor sleep quality is high among adults, especially women. There is a direct relationship between age and deterioration in the quality of sleep. This relationship also appears to be more consistent in women. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 120 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 9 | 8% |
| Researcher | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 15 | 13% |
| Unknown | 51 | 43% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 13% |
| Psychology | 11 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 5% |
| Engineering | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 21 | 18% |
| Unknown | 51 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 08 February 2024.
All research outputs
#3,181,509
of 25,986,827 outputs
Outputs from Gaceta Sanitaria
#15
of 52 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,908
of 425,568 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Gaceta Sanitaria
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,986,827 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 52 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 425,568 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 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