↓ Skip to main content

Patient perceptions of foot disability in Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: a comparison of the juvenile arthritis foot disability index and the Oxford ankle foot questionnaire for children

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Patient perceptions of foot disability in Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: a comparison of the juvenile arthritis foot disability index and the Oxford ankle foot questionnaire for children
Published in
Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13047-015-0106-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jill Ferrari

Abstract

The Juvenile Arthritis Foot Disability Index (JAFI) and the Oxford Ankle Foot Questionnaire for Children (OxAFQ-C) are two region-specific paediatric outcome tools that measure the impact on well-being in children with foot pathology. The aim of this study was to establish the level of agreement between the JAFI and the OxAFQ-C in a group of children diagnosed with Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA). Children with JIA accessed the questionnaire via a website. The OxAFQ-C questionnaire and the JAFI questionnaire were combined into one document consisting of 42 statements with Likert-scale responses. A further question regarding duration of disease was added. On completion, the web-linked questionnaire was returned by e-mail. Thirty five participants were included. Individual domain and composite score analysis was undertaken. The JAFI participation domain was compared to the OxAFQ-C school domain and showed no significant difference between the median scores of each participant (z = -1.33, p = 0.181). The JAFI activity and the OxAFQ-C physical domains were compared and showed that a significant difference between the median scores existed (z = -4.29, p < 0.001). Agreement between the two PROMs was tested using Bland Altman Levels of Agreement based upon the percentage summed composite scores. Levels of agreement between the scores were considered to be poor based on the Bland Altman plot, despite a low mean difference in scores (mean difference = -3.88, SD of difference = 9.93, p = 0.027). Pearson correlation was undertaken to measure the relationship between the summed composite score and disease duration. No relationship was found (JAFI: r = -0.08, p = 0.672; OxAFQ-C: r = 0.037, p = 0.871). This study has shown that despite some agreement between the individual domains, overall there is poor agreement between the OxAFQ-C and the JAFI percentage summed composite scores. The study is not able to determine if one score is superior to the other but both scores could be of value when used in this population.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 5%
Unknown 21 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 23%
Student > Master 5 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 5 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 7 32%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 14%
Psychology 1 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 11 December 2017.
All research outputs
#7,208,680
of 25,986,827 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Foot and Ankle Research
#6
of 6 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,834
of 280,440 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Foot and Ankle Research
#12
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,986,827 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.3. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
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 280,440 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 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 52% of its contemporaries.