↓ Skip to main content

The Breathing, Thinking, Functioning clinical model: a proposal to facilitate evidence-based breathlessness management in chronic respiratory disease

Overview of attention for article published in npj Primary Care Respiratory Medicine, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#3 of 393)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
258 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
66 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 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
The Breathing, Thinking, Functioning clinical model: a proposal to facilitate evidence-based breathlessness management in chronic respiratory disease
Published in
npj Primary Care Respiratory Medicine, April 2017
DOI 10.1038/s41533-017-0024-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna Spathis, Sara Booth, Catherine Moffat, Rhys Hurst, Richella Ryan, Chloe Chin, Julie Burkin

Abstract

Refractory breathlessness is a highly prevalent and distressing symptom in advanced chronic respiratory disease. Its intensity is not reliably predicted by the severity of lung pathology, with unhelpful emotions and behaviours inadvertently exacerbating and perpetuating the problem. Improved symptom management is possible if clinicians choose appropriate non-pharmacological approaches, but these require engagement and commitment from both patients and clinicians. The Breathing Thinking Functioning clinical model is a proposal, developed from current evidence, that has the potential to facilitate effective symptom control, by providing a rationale and focus for treatment.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 258 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 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 93 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 20%
Researcher 12 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 12%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Other 10 11%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 15 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 18%
Psychology 6 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 20 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 179. 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 12 March 2021.
All research outputs
#126,695
of 17,930,534 outputs
Outputs from npj Primary Care Respiratory Medicine
#3
of 393 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,853
of 274,467 outputs
Outputs of similar age from npj Primary Care Respiratory Medicine
#1
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,930,534 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 393 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. 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 274,467 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 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