↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Physical activity in patients with heart failure: barriers and motivations with special focus on sex differences

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 Mendeley
Title
Physical activity in patients with heart failure: barriers and motivations with special focus on sex differences
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, November 2015
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s90942
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leonie Klompstra, Tiny Jaarsma, Anna Strömberg

Abstract

Adherence to recommendations for physical activity is low in both male and female patients with heart failure (HF). Men are more physically active than women. In order to successfully promote physical activity, it is therefore essential to explore how much and why HF patients are physically active and if this is related to sex. The aim of this study was therefore to evaluate physical activity in HF patients, to describe the factors related to physical activity, and to examine potential barriers and motivations to physical activity with special focus on sex differences. The study had a cross-sectional survey design. HF patients living at home received a questionnaire during May-July 2014, with questions on physical activity (from the Short Form-International Physical Activity Questionnaire), and potential barriers and motivations to physical activity. A total of 154 HF patients, 27% women, with a mean age of 70±10 were included. In total, 23% of the patients reported a high level of physical activity, 46% a moderate level, and 34% a low level. Higher education, self-efficacy, and motivation were significantly associated with a higher amount of physical activity. Symptoms or severity of the disease were not related to physical activity. All the potential barriers to exercise were reported to be of importance. Psychological motivations were most frequently rated as being the most important motivation (41%) to be physically active. Physical motivations (33%) and social motivations were rated as the least important ones (22%). Women had significantly higher total motivation to be physically active. These differences were found in social, physical, and psychological motivations. One-third of the HF patients had a low level of physical activity in their daily life. Severity of the disease or symptoms were not related, whereas level of education, exercise self-efficacy, and motivation were important factors to take into account when advising a HF patient about physical activity. Women reported higher motivation to be physically active than men, but there was no difference in the reported level of physical activity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 103 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 19%
Student > Bachelor 17 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 13%
Other 5 5%
Student > Postgraduate 4 4%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 32 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 27 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 17%
Psychology 8 8%
Sports and Recreations 7 7%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 31 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 February 2016.
All research outputs
#3,448,869
of 25,806,080 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#198
of 1,769 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,885
of 295,764 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#5
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,080 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,769 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 295,764 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.