| Title |
Interaction between functional health literacy, patient activation, and glycemic control
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Patient preference and adherence, July 2014
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ppa.s63954 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
LeChauncy D Woodard, Cassie R Landrum, Amber B Amspoker, David Ramsey, Aanand D Naik |
| Abstract |
Functional health literacy (FHL) and patient activation can impact diabetes control through enhanced diabetes self-management. Less is known about the combined effect of these characteristics on diabetes outcomes. Using brief, validated measures, we examined the interaction between FHL and patient activation in predicting glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) control among a cohort of multimorbid diabetic patients. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 91 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 19 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 14% |
| Other | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 14 | 15% |
| Unknown | 18 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 29 | 32% |
| Social Sciences | 13 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 14% |
| Psychology | 7 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Unknown | 17 | 18% |
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 13 September 2019.
All research outputs
#6,753,656
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#439
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,794
of 242,344 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#9
of 28 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 242,344 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 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 67% of its contemporaries.