↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Improving outcomes in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: the role of the interprofessional approach

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
210 Mendeley
Title
Improving outcomes in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: the role of the interprofessional approach
Published in
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, June 2015
DOI 10.2147/copd.s71450
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sandra Adams, Bravein Amalakuhan

Abstract

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with significant morbidity, places substantial time and cost burden on the health care system, and is now the third leading cause of death in the US. Many interventions are available to appropriately manage patients with COPD; however, fully implementing these strategies to help improve outcomes may be difficult. Collaboration between an interprofessional team of health care professionals (which includes physicians, nurses, respiratory therapists, physical therapists, dietitians, pharmacists, and many others) and COPD patients and caregivers is necessary to optimally manage these patients and to truly impact outcomes in this devastating disease. Prescribing evidence-based non-pharmacological and pharmacological therapies is an important start, but a true team-based approach is critical to successfully implement comprehensive care in patients with COPD. The goal of this review is to employ a case-based approach to provide practical information regarding the roles of the interprofessional team in implementing strategies to optimally manage COPD patients.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 210 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 207 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 42 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 12%
Researcher 26 12%
Student > Bachelor 26 12%
Student > Postgraduate 19 9%
Other 36 17%
Unknown 35 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 60 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 59 28%
Social Sciences 13 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 4%
Psychology 7 3%
Other 18 9%
Unknown 44 21%

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 29 June 2015.
All research outputs
#3,725,562
of 5,291,770 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#467
of 651 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,499
of 187,163 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#61
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,291,770 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 651 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 187,163 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.