↓ Skip to main content

Physical impairments and physical therapy services for minority and low-income breast cancer survivors

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, August 2016
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 (76th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
Title
Physical impairments and physical therapy services for minority and low-income breast cancer survivors
Published in
SpringerPlus, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40064-016-2455-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ann Marie Flores, Jason Nelson, Lee Sowles, Karen Bienenstock, William J. Blot

Abstract

We describe impairments after breast cancer and its treatment for African American (AA), non-Hispanic white and low-income breast cancer survivors (BCS) and whether physical therapy (PT) was utilized to address these impairments. BCS from the Southern Community Cohort Study (SCCS) were surveyed about self-reported BC treatment-related impairments (shoulder impairment, muscle weakness, pain, fatigue, skin numbness, abnormal posture) and referral to PT for impairments. We compared impairments by race, income and PT utilization. We used a cross-sectional design. Among 528 BCS interviewed (266 whites; 262 AA), mean age 64, those with low incomes were more likely to report muscle weakness, pain and postural abnormalities, and a greater total number of impairments than those with higher incomes. Racial differences were few. PT utilization tended to be low, with AAs more likely than whites to utilize PT if they had shoulder impairment or pain, whereas no monotonic trends across income levels were seen in PT utilization. Low-income level was associated with greater prevalence of BC-related physical impairments, but not higher PT utilization. There appears to be a possible under-utilization of PT, particularly for those with low incomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 16%
Researcher 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 15 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 9 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 16%
Psychology 1 3%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Linguistics 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 16 42%
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 01 November 2018.
All research outputs
#4,823,537
of 23,511,526 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#302
of 1,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,645
of 369,338 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#48
of 243 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,511,526 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 1,855 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 369,338 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 243 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.