↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Motivational interviewing for improving recovery after stroke

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
146 Mendeley
Title
Motivational interviewing for improving recovery after stroke
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011398.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daobin Cheng, Zhanli Qu, Jianyi Huang, Yousheng Xiao, Hongye Luo, Jin Wang

Abstract

Psychological problems are common complications following stroke that can cause stroke survivors to lack the motivation to take part in activities of daily living. Motivational interviewing provides a specific way for enhancing intrinsic motivation, which may help to improve activities of daily living for stroke survivors. To investigate the effect of motivational interviewing for improving activities of daily living after stroke. We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group's Trials Register (November 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1948 to March 2015), EMBASE (1980 to March 2015), CINAHL (1982 to March 2015), AMED (1985 to March 2015), PsycINFO (1806 to March 2015), PsycBITE (March 2015) and four Chinese databases. In an effort to identify further published, unpublished and ongoing trials, we searched ongoing trials registers and conference proceedings, checked reference lists, and contacted authors of relevant studies. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing motivational interviewing with no intervention, sham motivational interviewing or other psychological therapy for people with stroke were eligible. Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted eligible data and assessed risk of bias. Outcome measures included activities of daily living, mood and death. One study involving a total of 411 participants, which compared motivational interviewing with usual care, met our inclusion criteria. The results of this review did not show significant differences between groups receiving motivational interviewing or usual stroke care for participants who were not dependent on others for activities of daily living, nor on the death rate after three-month and 12-month follow-up, but participants receiving motivational interviewing were more likely to have a normal mood than those who received usual care at three-months and 12-months follow-up. There is insufficient evidence to support the use of motivational interviewing for improving activities of daily living after stroke. Further well designed RCTs are needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters 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 146 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 146 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 36 25%
Student > Bachelor 17 12%
Researcher 14 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 7%
Student > Postgraduate 9 6%
Other 25 17%
Unknown 35 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 33 23%
Psychology 13 9%
Social Sciences 8 5%
Neuroscience 5 3%
Other 14 10%
Unknown 40 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 19 April 2019.
All research outputs
#11,263,168
of 17,977,824 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,996
of 11,801 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,705
of 243,516 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#214
of 248 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,977,824 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,801 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.4. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 243,516 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 248 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.