↓ Skip to main content

Understanding stroke survivors’ and informal carers’ experiences of and need for primary care and community health services—a systematic review of the qualitative literature: protocol: Table 1

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 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
Understanding stroke survivors’ and informal carers’ experiences of and need for primary care and community health services—a systematic review of the qualitative literature: protocol: Table 1
Published in
BMJ Open, January 2016
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009244
Pubmed ID
Authors

N A Aziz, D M Pindus, R Mullis, F M Walter, J Mant

Abstract

Despite the rising prevalence of stroke, no comprehensive model of postacute stroke care exists. Research on stroke has focused on acute care and early supported discharge, with less attention dedicated to longer term support in the community. Likewise, relatively little research has focused on long-term support for informal carers. This review aims to synthesise and appraise extant qualitative evidence on: (1) long-term healthcare needs of stroke survivors and informal carers, and (2) their experiences of primary care and community health services. The review will inform the development of a primary care model for stroke survivors and informal carers. We will systematically search 4 databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL for published qualitative evidence on the needs and experiences of stroke survivors and informal carers of postacute care delivered by primary care and community health services. Additional searches of reference lists and citation indices will be conducted. The quality of articles will be assessed by 2 independent reviewers using a Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion or third party adjudication. Meta-ethnography will be used to synthesise the literature based on first-order, second-order and third-order constructs. We will construct a theoretical model of stroke survivors' and informal carers' experiences of primary care and community health services. The results of the systematic review will be disseminated via publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at a relevant conference. The study does not require ethical approval as no patient identifiable data will be used.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 94 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 14%
Other 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 9%
Other 22 23%
Unknown 12 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 24%
Social Sciences 8 9%
Psychology 7 7%
Neuroscience 5 5%
Other 15 16%
Unknown 12 13%

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 07 June 2016.
All research outputs
#12,138,666
of 15,922,419 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#12,094
of 14,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,512
of 371,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#375
of 432 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,922,419 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,557 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.3. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 371,557 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 432 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.