↓ Skip to main content

Prevalence and predictors of complementary and alternative medicine use among people with coronary heart disease or at risk for this in the sixth Tromsø study: a comparative analysis using protection…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
Prevalence and predictors of complementary and alternative medicine use among people with coronary heart disease or at risk for this in the sixth Tromsø study: a comparative analysis using protection motivation theory
Published in
BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12906-017-1817-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Agnete E. Kristoffersen, Fuschia M. Sirois, Trine Stub, Anne Helen Hansen

Abstract

Engagement in healthy lifestyle behaviors, such as healthy diet and regular physical activity, are known to reduce the risk of developing coronary heart disease (CHD). Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is known to be associated with having a healthy lifestyle. The primary aim of this study was to examine the prevalence and predictors of CAM use in CHD patients, and in those without CHD but at risk for developing CHD, using Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) as a guiding conceptual framework. Questionnaire data were collected from 12,981 adult participants in the cross-sectional sixth Tromsø Study (2007-8). Eligible for analyses were 11,103 participants who reported whether they had used CAM or not. Of those, 830 participants reported to have or have had CHD (CHD group), 4830 reported to have parents, children or siblings with CHD (no CHD but family risk), while 5443 reported no CHD nor family risk of CHD. We first compared the patterns of CAM use in each group, and then examined the PMT predictors of CAM use. Health vulnerability from the threat appraisal process of PMT was assessed by self-rated health and expectations for future health. Response efficacy from the coping appraisal process of PMT was assessed as preventive health beliefs and health behavior frequency. Use of CAM was most commonly seen in people with no CHD themselves, but family risk of developing CHD (35.8%), compared to people already diagnosed with CHD (30.2%) and people with no CHD nor family risk (32.1%). All four of the PMT factors; self-rated health, expectations for future health, preventive health beliefs, and the health behavior index - were predictors for CAM use in the no CHD but family risk group. These findings suggest that people use CAM in response to a perceived risk of developing CHD, and to prevent disease and to maintain health.

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 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 21%
Unspecified 5 15%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 8 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 10 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 18%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Psychology 2 6%
Other 6 18%

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 28 June 2017.
All research outputs
#6,291,171
of 11,426,158 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine
#990
of 2,377 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,855
of 263,807 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine
#7
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,426,158 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,377 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 263,807 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.