| Title |
Facilitators and barriers to hypertension self-management in urban African Americans: perspectives of patients and family members
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Patient preference and adherence, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ppa.s46517 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ebony Boulware, Sarah Flynn, Jessica Ameling, Felicia Hill-Briggs, Jennifer Wolff, Lee Bone, David Levine, Debra Roter, LaPricia Lewis-Boyer, Annette Fisher, Leon Purnell, Patti Ephraim, Jeffrey Barbers, Stephanie Fitzpatrick, Michael Albert, Lisa Cooper, Peter Fagan, Destiny Martin, Hema Ramamurthi |
| Abstract |
We aimed to inform the design of behavioral interventions by identifying patients' and their family members' perceived facilitators and barriers to hypertension self-management. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 235 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ghana | 1 | <1% |
| Tanzania, United Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 233 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 33 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 27 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 21 | 9% |
| Researcher | 19 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 11 | 5% |
| Other | 30 | 13% |
| Unknown | 94 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 50 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 45 | 19% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 5% |
| Psychology | 8 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 3% |
| Other | 19 | 8% |
| Unknown | 96 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 08 July 2017.
All research outputs
#13,394,135
of 22,727,570 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#691
of 1,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,357
of 198,405 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#15
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,727,570 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,590 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 198,405 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 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 60% of its contemporaries.