| Title |
Assistive technologies after stroke: self-management or fending for yourself? A focus group study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6963-13-334 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sara Demain, Jane Burridge, Caroline Ellis-Hill, Ann-Marie Hughes, Lucy Yardley, Lisa Tedesco-Triccas, Ian Swain |
| Abstract |
Assistive Technologies, defined as "electrical or mechanical devices designed to help people recover movement" have demonstrated clinical benefits in upper-limb stroke rehabilitation. Stroke services are becoming community-based and more reliant on self-management approaches. Assistive technologies could become important tools within self-management, however, in practice, few people currently use assistive technologies. This study investigated patients', family caregivers and health professionals' experiences and perceptions of stroke upper-limb rehabilitation and assistive technology use and identified the barriers and facilitators to their use in supporting stroke self-management. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 266 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | 2% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 256 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 41 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 40 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 33 | 12% |
| Researcher | 28 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 15 | 6% |
| Other | 40 | 15% |
| Unknown | 69 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 52 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 11% |
| Engineering | 25 | 9% |
| Psychology | 21 | 8% |
| Neuroscience | 14 | 5% |
| Other | 44 | 17% |
| Unknown | 80 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 17 May 2023.
All research outputs
#13,308,628
of 23,779,713 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#4,357
of 7,913 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,366
of 200,836 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#48
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,779,713 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,913 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 200,836 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 97 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 50% of its contemporaries.