↓ Skip to main content

Health-related quality of life in the Brazilian Amazon: a population-based cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 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
Health-related quality of life in the Brazilian Amazon: a population-based cross-sectional study
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12955-017-0734-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marcus Tolentino Silva, Monica Caicedo Roa, Tais Freire Galvao

Abstract

To analyze perceptions of health-related quality of life and associated factors in populations from the Manaus Metropolitan Region. We conducted a population-based cross-sectional study from May to August 2015. Adults aged 18 years and older were selected using probabilistic three-phase cluster sampling and stratified by sex and age, based on official estimates. Quality of life data were collected using the European Quality of Life 5-Dimensions 3-Levels (EQ-5D-3L) along with socioeconomic, demographic, and health perception data. Utility scores were calculated using the Brazilian version of the EQ-5D-3L. Descriptive statistics were derived, and a multivariate Tobit regression model with correction for complex sampling was performed to identify the variables that influence utility levels. A total of 4001 participants were included. The average utility score was 0.886 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.881-0.890) with significant differences according to living area (the capital (0.882 ± 0.144) or inner cities (0.908 ± 0.122; p < 0.001)). The dimension for which the highest proportion of people reported moderate to severe problems was pain/discomfort (39%), followed by anxiety/depression (18%). Men had a higher quality of life than women (β = 0.041, p < 0.001). Not working was a factor that increased quality of life compared with being formally employed (β = 0.031, p = 0.037). The poorest people had a lower quality of life than the richest people (β = -0.118, p < 0.001). Better health perceptions increased utility scores (p < 0.001), while being separated decreased the scores (β = -0.052, p = 0.001). Health-related quality of life in the Manaus Metropolitan Region was high, as expected for the general population, and was higher among individuals who lived in the inner cities, men and those in higher social classes. Gender discrepancies and differences in quality of life between the capital and inner cities should be further investigated.

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 readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 84 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 10%
Other 7 8%
Student > Master 7 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 5%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 40 48%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 7%
Psychology 4 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 43 51%
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 August 2017.
All research outputs
#17,911,821
of 22,997,544 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1,512
of 2,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#227,805
of 317,683 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#37
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,997,544 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,186 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 317,683 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 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.