↓ Skip to main content

Barriers and facilitators to self-care in chronic heart failure: a meta-synthesis of qualitative studies

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
90 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
135 Mendeley
Title
Barriers and facilitators to self-care in chronic heart failure: a meta-synthesis of qualitative studies
Published in
SpringerPlus, July 2013
DOI 10.1186/2193-1801-2-320
Pubmed ID
Authors

Soraya Siabani, Stephen R Leeder, Patricia M Davidson

Abstract

Chronic heart failure (CHF) is a costly condition that places large demands on self-care. Failure to adhere with self-care recommendations is common and associated with frequent hospitalization. Understanding the factors that enable or inhibit self-care is essential in developing effective health care interventions. This qualitative review was conducted to address the research question, "What are the barriers and facilitators to self-care among patients with CHF?" Electronic databases including Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus and Google scholar were searched. Articles were included if they were peer reviewed (1995 to 2012), in English language and investigated at least one contextual or individual factor impacting on self-care in CHF patients > 18years. The criteria defined by Kuper et al. including clarity and appropriateness of sampling, data collection and data analysis were used to appraise the quality of articles. Twenty-three articles met the inclusion criteria. Factors impacting on self-care were included factors related to symptoms of CHF and the self-care process; factors related to personal characteristics; and factors related to environment and self-care system. Important factors such as socioeconomic situation and education level have not been explored extensively and there were minimal data on the influence of age, gender, self-confidence and duration of disease. Although there is an emerging literature, further research is required to address the barriers and facilitators to self-care in patients with CHF in order to provide an appropriate guide for intervention strategies to improve self-care in CHF.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 133 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 21%
Student > Bachelor 18 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 13%
Other 12 9%
Researcher 12 9%
Other 29 21%
Unknown 18 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 38 28%
Psychology 9 7%
Social Sciences 8 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 5%
Other 13 10%
Unknown 21 16%
Attention Score in Context

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 04 August 2017.
All research outputs
#13,154,684
of 22,714,025 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#653
of 1,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,163
of 193,994 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#26
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,714,025 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,852 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 193,994 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 76 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 63% of its contemporaries.