↓ Skip to main content

A qualitative study of perceptions of meaningful change in spinal muscular atrophy

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Neurology, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
77 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
151 Mendeley
Title
A qualitative study of perceptions of meaningful change in spinal muscular atrophy
Published in
BMC Neurology, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12883-017-0853-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah McGraw, Ying Qian, Jeff Henne, Jill Jarecki, Kenneth Hobby, Wei-Shi Yeh

Abstract

This qualitative study examined how individuals with Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA), their caregivers, and clinicians defined meaningful change, primarily in the Type II and non-ambulant type III patient populations, associated with treatment of this condition. In addition, we explored participants' views about two measures of motor function routinely used in clinical trials for these SMA subtypes, namely the expanded version of the Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale (HFMSE) and the Upper Limb Module (ULM). The 123 participants (21 with SMA, 64 parents, and 11 clinicians), recruited through SMA advocacy organizations, participated in one of 16 focus groups or 37 interviews. The sessions were audio-recorded, and verbatim transcripts were analyzed using a grounded theory approach. For the participants, meaningful change was relative to functional ability, and small changes in motor function could have an important impact on quality of life. Because patients and families feared progressive loss of functional ability, the participants saw maintenance of abilities as a meaningful outcome. They believed that measures of motor function covered important items, but worried that the HFMSE and ULM might not be sensitive enough to capture small changes. In addition, they felt that outcome measures should assess other important features of life with SMA, including the ability to perform daily activities, respiratory function, swallowing, fatigue, and endurance. Given the heterogeneity of SMA, it is important to expand the assessment of treatment effects to a broader range of outcomes using measures sensitive enough to detect small changes.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 151 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 151 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 12%
Other 17 11%
Researcher 17 11%
Student > Bachelor 14 9%
Student > Master 13 9%
Other 25 17%
Unknown 47 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 5%
Neuroscience 6 4%
Other 24 16%
Unknown 56 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 07 November 2022.
All research outputs
#4,615,726
of 23,056,273 outputs
Outputs from BMC Neurology
#589
of 2,468 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,638
of 309,139 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Neurology
#15
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,056,273 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,468 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 309,139 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 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 70% of its contemporaries.