↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

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

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
video
1 video uploader

Readers on

mendeley
45 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

David Halpin, Michael Hyland, Sue Blake, Dave Seamark, Margaret Pinnuck, David Ward, Ben Whalley, Colin Greaves, Adam Hawkins, Clare 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 33%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Researcher 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 10 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 9 20%

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 23 October 2016.
All research outputs
#1,404,022
of 8,554,039 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#185
of 1,098 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,160
of 254,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#13
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,554,039 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,098 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 254,958 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.