↓ Skip to main content

Online stroke forum as source of data for qualitative research: insights from a comparison with patients’ interviews

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 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
Online stroke forum as source of data for qualitative research: insights from a comparison with patients’ interviews
Published in
BMJ Open, March 2018
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020133
Pubmed ID
Authors

James Jamison, Stephen Sutton, Jonathan Mant, Anna De Simoni

Abstract

To determine the appropriateness of an online forum compared with face-to-face interviews as a source of data for qualitative research on adherence to secondary prevention medications after stroke. A comparison of attributes of two data sources, interviews and a forum, using realistic evaluation; a comparison of themes around adherence according to the Perceptions and Practicalities Approach (PAPA) framework. Interviews were conducted in UK GP practices in 2013 and 2014; online posts were written by UK stroke survivors and family members taking part in the online forum of the Stroke Association between 2004 and 2011. 42 interview participants: 28 stroke survivors (age range 61-92 years) and 14 caregivers (85% spouses). 84 online forum participants: 49 stroke survivors (age range 32-72 years) and 33 caregivers (60% sons/daughters). 10 attributes were identified within the two data sources and categorised under three domains (context, mechanisms and outcomes). Participants' characteristics of forum users were often missing. Most forum participants had experienced a stroke within the previous 12 months, while interviewees had done so 1-5 years previously.All interview themes could be matched with corresponding themes from the forum. The forum yielded three additional themes: influence of bad press on taking statins, criticisms of clinicians' prescribing practices and caregiver burden in assisting with medications and being advocates for survivors with healthcare professionals. An online forum is an appropriate source of data for qualitative research on patients' and caregivers' issues with adherence to secondary prevention stroke medications and may offer additional insights compared with interviews, which can be attributed to differences in the approach to data collection.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 40%
Unspecified 5 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 15%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 7 35%
Social Sciences 3 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 10%
Psychology 2 10%
Other 4 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 07 July 2019.
All research outputs
#2,472,056
of 13,610,398 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#4,684
of 12,100 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,989
of 271,409 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#261
of 619 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,610,398 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,100 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 271,409 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 619 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 57% of its contemporaries.