↓ Skip to main content

Conceptualising post-stroke fatigue: a cross-sectional survey of UK-based physiotherapists and occupational therapists

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, December 2019
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 (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 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
Conceptualising post-stroke fatigue: a cross-sectional survey of UK-based physiotherapists and occupational therapists
Published in
BMJ Open, December 2019
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033066
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karen Thomas, Clarissa Hjalmarsson, Ricky Mullis, Jonathan Mant

Abstract

With survival after stroke improving, more people are discharged into the community with multiple and persistent deficits. Fatigue is a common unmet need for stroke survivors, but there are no evidence-based guidelines for its assessment and management. This study explored how UK-based therapists conceptualise post-stroke fatigue (PSF) in current practice. To describe current understanding of PSF among physiotherapists (PT) and occupational therapists (OT). A cross-sectional online survey using Qualtrics software (a survey creation and analysis programme) was sent to therapists working with stroke survivors in 2019. Responses to the open ended question, 'How would you describe PSF if approached by another healthcare professional?' were analysed thematically by two independent researchers. 137 survey respondents (71 PT and 66 OT) from a range of clinical settings (25 acute care, 24 sub-acute rehabilitation care, 3 primary care and 85 community care) with 7 months-36 years of experience working with stroke survivors completed the survey. Respondents stated that PSF should be regarded as an important medical condition because it is common and can be associated with severe symptoms. Symptoms were perceived to be highly variable and the syndrome was difficult to define objectively. It was felt to have both physical and cognitive components. A variety of different opinions were expressed with regard to causation, conceptualisation and best management. Therapists working with stroke survivors conceptualise and manage PSF in different ways. Clinical practice is hampered by a lack of a widely adopted definition, and a small evidence base. Research into causes and management of PSF is a priority.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users 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 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Professor 3 5%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 24 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 11 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 7%
Engineering 3 5%
Unspecified 2 3%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 30 52%
Attention Score in Context

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 17 December 2019.
All research outputs
#5,126,072
of 25,387,668 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#9,088
of 25,599 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,450
of 474,028 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#300
of 780 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,387,668 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,599 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 474,028 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 780 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 61% of its contemporaries.