↓ Skip to main content

Consequences of screening in abdominal aortic aneurysm: development and dimensionality of a questionnaire

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
9 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
Consequences of screening in abdominal aortic aneurysm: development and dimensionality of a questionnaire
Published in
Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s41687-018-0066-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

John Brodersen, Anders Hansson, Minna Johansson, Volkert Siersma, Marcus Langenskiöld, Monica Pettersson

Abstract

In interview studies, men under surveillance for screening-detected abdominal aortic aneurysms have reported ambivalence towards this diagnosis: the knowledge was welcomed together with worries, feelings of anxiety and existential thoughts about life's fragility and mortality due to the diagnosis. Previous surveys about health-related quality of life aspects among men under surveillance for screening-detected aneurysm have all used generic patient-reported outcomes. Therefore, the aim of this study was to extend the core-questionnaire Consequences of Screening for use in abdominal aortic aneurysm screening by testing for comprehension, content coverage, dimensionality, and reliability. In interviews, the suitability, content coverage, and relevance of the core-questionnaire Consequences of Screening were tested on men under surveillance for a screeningdetected abdominal aortic aneurysm. The results were thematically analysed to identify the key consequences of abnormal screening results. Item Response Theory and Classical Test Theory were used to analyse data. Dimensionality, differential item functioning, local response dependency and reliability were established by item analysis, examining the fit between item responses and Rasch models. The core-questionnaire Consequences of Screening was found to be relevant for men offered regular follow-up of an asymptomatic screening-detected abdominal aortic aneurysm.Fourteen themes especially relevant for men diagnosed with a screening-detected abdominal aortic aneurysm were extracted from the interviews: 'Uncertainty about the result of the ultra sound examination', 'Change in body perception', 'Guilt', 'Fear and powerlessness', 'Negative experiences from the examination', 'Emotional reactions', 'Change in lifestyle', 'Better not knowing', 'Fear of rupture', 'Sexuality', 'Information', 'Stigmatised', 'Self-blame for smoking', 'Still regretful smoking'. Altogether, 55 new items were generated: 3 were single items and 13 were only relevant for former or current smokers. 51 of the 52 items belonging to a theme were confirmed to fit Rasch models measuring fourteen different constructs. No differential item functioning and only minor local dependency was revealed between some of the 51 items. The reliability and the dimensionality of a condition-specific measure with high content validity for men under surveillance for a screening-detected abdominal aortic aneurysm have been demonstrated. This new questionnaire called COS-AAA covers in two parts the psychosocial experience in abdominal aortic aneurysm screening.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 2 22%
Unspecified 2 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 22%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 11%
Student > Master 1 11%
Other 1 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 44%
Unspecified 2 22%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 11%
Psychology 1 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 11%
Other 0 0%

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 09 September 2019.
All research outputs
#8,549,326
of 13,601,191 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes
#59
of 110 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,599
of 266,069 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,601,191 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 110 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 266,069 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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