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 |
Sarah J Flynn, Jessica M Ameling, Felicia Hill-Briggs, Jennifer L Wolff, Lee R Bone, David M Levine, Debra l Roter, LaPricia Lewis-Boyer, Annette R Fisher, Leon Purnell, Patti L Ephraim, Jeffrey Barbers, Stephanie L Fitzpatrick, Michael C Albert, Lisa A Cooper, Peter J Fagan, Destiny Martin, Hema C Ramamurthi, L Ebony Boulware |
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 240 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 | 238 | 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 | 32 | 13% |
Unknown | 97 | 40% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Nursing and Health Professions | 50 | 21% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 46 | 19% |
Social Sciences | 11 | 5% |
Psychology | 8 | 3% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 3% |
Other | 19 | 8% |
Unknown | 100 | 42% |
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 08 July 2017.
All research outputs
#6,753,240
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#439
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,792
of 210,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#10
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 210,072 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 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 72% of its contemporaries.