↓ Skip to main content

An International Perspective on Quality of Life in Aphasia: A Survey of Clinician Views and Practices from Sixteen Countries

Overview of attention for article published in Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 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
An International Perspective on Quality of Life in Aphasia: A Survey of Clinician Views and Practices from Sixteen Countries
Published in
Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica, January 2016
DOI 10.1159/000434748
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hilari, K.

Abstract

To gain an insight into speech and language therapists' perspectives on and practices in quality of life in aphasia. The International Association of Logopedics and Phoniatrics Aphasia Committee developed a survey questionnaire, which was delivered online, anonymously, through SurveyMonkey (November 2012 to April 2013) to clinicians working with people with aphasia in 16 countries across the world. A large number of speech and language therapists responded to the survey, with 19/21 questions answered by 385-579 participants. Clinicians were well informed on what constitutes quality of life and viewed it as a complex construct influenced by health, participation, in/dependence, communication, personal factors, and environmental factors. In their clinical practice, they considered quality of life as important, used informal approaches to explore it and aimed to address quality of life goals; yet, the majority did not evaluate quality of life in a systematic way. There is a need for training on quality of life to help speech and language therapists incorporate quality of life outcome measures in their interventions. There is also a need for further research on which interventions improve quality of life in aphasia.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 6%
Unknown 17 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 33%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 17%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Professor 2 11%
Other 2 11%
Other 3 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 5 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 22%
Psychology 2 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 11%
Computer Science 1 6%
Other 4 22%

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 26 February 2016.
All research outputs
#6,295,371
of 7,289,383 outputs
Outputs from Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica
#73
of 84 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#219,803
of 265,092 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica
#4
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,289,383 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 84 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 265,092 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.