| Title |
Older patients’ perceived burdens of their health problems: a cross-sectional analysis in 74 German general practices
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Patient preference and adherence, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ppa.s81348 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ulrike Junius-Walker, Birgitt Wiese, Renate Klaaßen-Mielke, Gudrun Theile, Christiane Annette Müller, Eva Hummers-Pradier |
| Abstract |
Older patients often experience the burden of multiple health problems. Physicians need to consider them to arrive at a holistic treatment plan. Yet, it has not been systematically investigated as to which personal burdens ensue from certain health conditions. The objective of this study is to examine older patients' perceived burden of their health problems. The study presents a cross-sectional analysis in 74 German general practices; 836 patients, 72 years and older (mean 79±4.4), rated the burden of each health problem disclosed by a comprehensive geriatric assessment. Patients rated each burden using three components: importance, emotional impact, and impact on daily activities. Cluster analyses were performed to define patterns in the rating of these components of burden. In a multilevel logistic regression analysis, independent factors that predict high and low burden were explored. Patients had a median of eleven health problems and rated the burden of altogether 8,900 health problems. Four clusters provided a good clustering structure. Two clusters describe a high burden, and a further two, a low burden. Patients attributed a high burden to social and psychological health problems (especially being a caregiver: odds ratio [OR] 10.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.4-24.4), to specific symptoms (eg, claudication: OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.3-4.0; pain: OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.6-3.1), and physical disabilities. Patients rated a comparatively low burden for most of their medical findings, for cognitive impairment, and lifestyle issues (eg, hypertension: OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.2-0.3). The patients experienced a relatively greater burden for physical disabilities, mood, or social issues than for diseases themselves. Physicians should interpret these burdens in the individual context and consider them in their treatment planning. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Austria | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 39 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 10% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 14 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 23% |
| Psychology | 4 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 17 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 22 June 2015.
All research outputs
#22,938,588
of 25,576,801 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#1,601
of 1,733 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,441
of 281,751 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#43
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,801 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,733 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 281,751 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.