↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Preference for different relaxation techniques by COPD patients: comparison between six techniques

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 Mendeley
Title
Preference for different relaxation techniques by COPD patients: comparison between six techniques
Published in
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, September 2016
DOI 10.2147/copd.s113108
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael E Hyland, David MG Halpin, Sue Blake, Clare Seamark, Margaret Pinnuck, David Ward, Ben Whalley, Colin J Greaves, Adam L Hawkins, Dave Seamark

Abstract

A review of the effectiveness of relaxation techniques for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients has shown inconsistent results, but studies have varied in terms of technique and outcome measures. To determine patient preference for different relaxation techniques. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients were presented with six techniques via a DVD and asked to rate the techniques in terms of effectiveness, rank in order of likely use, and comment. Patients differed in the technique preferred and reason for that preference, but the most commonly preferred technique both for effectiveness and ease of use was "thinking of a nice place" followed by progressive relaxation and counting. Familiarity and ease of activity were commonly given reasons for preference. Rather than providing patients with a single technique that they might find difficult to implement, these results suggest that it would be better to give a choice. "Thinking of a nice place" is a popular but under-investigated technique.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 98 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 10%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 4%
Researcher 4 4%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 39 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 18 18%
Psychology 14 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 12%
Sports and Recreations 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 38 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 23 October 2016.
All research outputs
#6,819,305
of 25,576,275 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#755
of 2,585 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,543
of 348,941 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#36
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,275 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,585 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 348,941 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 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 63% of its contemporaries.