↓ Skip to main content

The effects of daily mood and couple interactions on the sleep quality of older adults with chronic pain

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Behavioral Medicine, July 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 (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
Title
The effects of daily mood and couple interactions on the sleep quality of older adults with chronic pain
Published in
Journal of Behavioral Medicine, July 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10865-015-9651-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sunmi Song, Jennifer E. Graham-Engeland, Jacqueline Mogle, Lynn M. Martire

Abstract

We examined the effect of daily negative and positive mood on the sleep quality of knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients (N = 152) and whether a partner's daily responses to a patient's pain behaviors moderated these associations. Patients and their partners completed a baseline interview and 22 daily diary assessments. After controlling for demographic characteristics, OA severity, comorbidities, medication use, relationship satisfaction, and depressed mood, multilevel modeling analyses demonstrated main effects of negative and positive mood on sleep quality indicators. Mood and partner responses interacted such that high solicitous and punishing responses strengthened the association between negative mood and worse sleep. Further, high solicitous responses increased the degree of association between low positive mood and poor sleep, and empathic responses combined with positive mood were associated with better sleep. Results demonstrate that daily negative and positive mood fluctuations can interact with partner responses to affect sleep quality among older adults with chronic pain.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 42 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 20%
Researcher 8 18%
Unspecified 7 16%
Student > Master 6 14%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Other 10 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 16 36%
Unspecified 11 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Other 5 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 23 February 2016.
All research outputs
#678,775
of 12,316,253 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Behavioral Medicine
#62
of 736 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,653
of 242,278 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Behavioral Medicine
#4
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,316,253 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 736 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 242,278 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.