↓ Skip to main content

Buddhist religious practices and blood pressure among elderly in rural Uttaradit Province, northern Thailand

Overview of attention for article published in Nursing & Health Sciences, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 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.
Title
Buddhist religious practices and blood pressure among elderly in rural Uttaradit Province, northern Thailand
Published in
Nursing & Health Sciences, July 2013
DOI 10.1111/nhs.12075
Pubmed ID
Authors

Onwilasini Stewart, Khemika Yamarat, Karl J. Neeser, Somrat Lertmaharit, Eleanor Holroyd

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to test the relationship between Buddhist religious practices and blood pressure. A cross-sectional survey of Buddhist religious practices and blood pressure was conducted with 160 Buddhist elderly in rural Uttaradit, northern Thailand. After controlling for the variables of gender, status, education, salary, underlying hypertension, exercise, salt intake, and taking antihypertensive medications, it was found that lower systolic and diastolic blood pressure is associated with the Buddhist religious practice of temple attendance. The Buddhist older people who regularly attended a temple every Buddhist Holy day (which occurs once a week) were found to have systolic and diastolic blood pressure readings lower than people who did not attend as regularly. It is recommended that nurses advocate for temple attendance in the care protocols for older Buddhist hypertensive patients both in Thailand and internationally.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Unknown 30 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 19%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Master 4 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Librarian 2 6%
Other 9 29%
Unknown 3 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 13%
Psychology 2 6%
Unspecified 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 6 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 04 July 2013.
All research outputs
#6,946,396
of 12,350,698 outputs
Outputs from Nursing & Health Sciences
#126
of 491 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,377
of 147,690 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nursing & Health Sciences
#2
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,350,698 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 491 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 147,690 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 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.