↓ Skip to main content

Article

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, January 2003
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
304 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
130 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, January 2003
DOI 10.1186/1477-7525-1-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephen J Walters, John E Brazier

Abstract

The SF-6D is a new single summary preference-based measure of health derived from the SF-36. Empirical work is required to determine what is the smallest change in SF-6D scores that can be regarded as important and meaningful for health professionals, patients and other stakeholders. To use anchor-based methods to determine the minimally important difference (MID) for the SF-6D for various datasets. All responders to the original SF-36 questionnaire can be assigned an SF-6D score provided the 11 items used in the SF-6D have been completed. The SF-6D can be regarded as a continuous outcome scored on a 0.29 to 1.00 scale, with 1.00 indicating "full health". Anchor-based methods examine the relationship between an health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measure and an independent measure (or anchor) to elucidate the meaning of a particular degree of change. One anchor-based approach uses an estimate of the MID, the difference in the QoL scale corresponding to a self-reported small but important change on a global scale. Patients were followed for a period of time, then asked, using question 2 of the SF-36 as our global rating scale, (which is not part of the SF-6D), if there general health is much better (5), somewhat better (4), stayed the same (3), somewhat worse (2) or much worse (1) compared to the last time they were assessed. We considered patients whose global rating score was 4 or 2 as having experienced some change equivalent to the MID. In patients who reported a worsening of health (global change of 1 or 2) the sign of the change in the SF-6D score was reversed (i.e. multiplied by minus one). The MID was then taken as the mean change on the SF-6D scale of the patients who scored (2 or 4). This paper describes the MID for the SF-6D from seven longitudinal studies that had previously used the SF-36. From the seven reviewed studies (with nine patient groups) the MID for the SF-6D ranged from 0.010 to 0.048, with a weighted mean estimate of 0.033 (95% CI: 0.029 to 0.037). The corresponding Standardised Response Means (SRMs) ranged from 0.11 to 0.48, with a mean of 0.30 and were mainly in the "small to moderate" range using Cohen's criteria, supporting the MID results. Using the half-standard deviation (of change) approach the mean effect size was 0.051 (range 0.033 to 0.066). Further empirical work is required to see whether or not this holds true for other patient groups and populations.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 5 4%
Australia 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 120 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 31 24%
Student > Master 19 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 16 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 12%
Other 11 8%
Other 27 21%
Unknown 11 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 63 48%
Social Sciences 10 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 7%
Psychology 8 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 5%
Other 17 13%
Unknown 17 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 29 September 2016.
All research outputs
#4,352,188
of 15,827,677 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#542
of 1,736 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,525
of 233,223 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,827,677 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,736 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 233,223 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 1 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