↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Splitting, impulsivity, and intimate partnerships in young obese women seeking bariatric treatment

Overview of attention for article published in Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 Mendeley
Title
Splitting, impulsivity, and intimate partnerships in young obese women seeking bariatric treatment
Published in
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, September 2016
DOI 10.2147/ndt.s102485
Pubmed ID
Authors

Petr Bob, Jana Zmolikova, Dita Pichlerova, Denisa Schückova, Jitka Herlesova, Petr Weiss

Abstract

Splitting represents a defense mechanism that describes fragmentation of conscious experience that may occur in various psychopathological conditions. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship of splitting with disturbed cognitive and affective functions related to impulsivity and intimate partnerships in a group of obese patients indicated for bariatric treatment and compare the results with other obese patients and patients with bulimia nervosa. In this clinical study, we assessed 102 young women. The sample was divided into three subgroups: obese women (N=30), obese women indicated for bariatric treatment (N=48), and patients with bulimia nervosa (N=24). The patients were assessed using Splitting Index and Barratt Impulsivity Scale, and selected information about their intimate partnership was documented for all the participants. The main results of this study indicate significant differences in the relationship of splitting and impulsivity with difficulties in intimate partnerships. These differences discriminate obese patients indicated for bariatric treatment from other obese patients and patients with bulimia nervosa. These findings may have significant implications for treatment of the obese patients indicated for bariatric treatment and their presurgery psychological evaluations.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 4 33%
Student > Bachelor 3 25%
Student > Postgraduate 2 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 17%
Unknown 1 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 6 50%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 17%
Engineering 1 8%
Unknown 3 25%

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 19 September 2016.
All research outputs
#9,127,032
of 14,537,474 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#1,536
of 2,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,712
of 267,219 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#70
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,537,474 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,487 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 267,219 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 101 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.