↓ 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
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
29 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 2 14%
Student > Master 2 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 14%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Other 3 21%
Unknown 2 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 3 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 14%
Computer Science 1 7%
Sports and Recreations 1 7%
Arts and Humanities 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 5 36%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 18 June 2020.
All research outputs
#910,105
of 15,962,710 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#1,891
of 14,638 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,499
of 371,547 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#69
of 684 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,962,710 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,638 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 371,547 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 684 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.