| Title |
A survey of people with inflammatory bowel disease to investigate their views of food and nutritional issues
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1038/ejcn.2016.57 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
L Kinsey, S Burden |
| Abstract |
Survey aims were to investigate the dietary concerns, beliefs and opinions of people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and differences between those with Crohn's disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC). A cross-sectional postal questionnaire was sent to people with IBD who were booked into an adult IBD or Gastroenterology clinic over a 6-week period. There were 416 eligible people and 168 (40%) responded. Sixty-four (42%) people indicated that food affects their symptoms a lot or severely. Eighty (51%) respondents indicated that diet was important or extremely important in controlling symptoms. Significantly more people with CD reported meat, fatty foods, chocolate and salad as a trigger than people with UC. Significantly more people with UC reported wheat as a trigger. More people with CD avoided meat and chocolate than UC. This survey highlights the importance of nutrition and diet to people with IBD. Frequent food avoidance was reported. This may impact on nutrition-related health problems.European Journal of Clinical Nutrition advance online publication, 27 April 2016; doi:10.1038/ejcn.2016.57. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 40% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 50 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 18% |
| Researcher | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 10% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Unknown | 15 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 18% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Psychology | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Unknown | 15 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 20 June 2017.
All research outputs
#2,566,708
of 23,852,579 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Clinical Nutrition
#971
of 3,925 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,870
of 301,144 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Clinical Nutrition
#24
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,852,579 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,925 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 301,144 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 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 62% of its contemporaries.