| Title |
Building bridges for innovation in ageing: Synergies between action groups of the EIP on AHA
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The journal of nutrition, health & aging, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12603-016-0803-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jean Bousquet, M. Bewick, A. Cano, P. Eklund, G. Fico, N. Goswami, N.A. Guldemond, D. Henderson, M.J. Hinkema, G. Liotta, A. Mair, W. Molloy, A. Monaco, I. Monsonis-Paya, A. Nizinska, H. Papadopoulos, A. Pavlickova, S. Pecorelli, A. Prados-Torres, R.E. Roller-Wirnsberger, D. Somekh, C. Vera-Muñoz, F. Visser, J. Farrell, J. Malva, K. Andersen Ranberg, T. Camuzat, A.M. Carriazo, G. Crooks, Z. Gutter, G. Iaccarino, E. Manuel de Keenoy, G. Moda, L. Rodriguez-Mañas, T. Vontetsianos, C. Abreu, J. Alonso, C. Alonso-Bouzon, J. Ankri, M.T. Arredondo, F. Avolio, A. Bedbrook, A.Z. Białoszewski, H. Blain, R. Bourret, M.F. Cabrera-Umpierrez, A. Catala, R. O'Caoimh, M. Cesari, N.H. Chavannes, J. Correia-Da-Sousa, T. Dedeu, M. Ferrando, M. Ferri, W.J. Fokkens, F. Garcia-Lizana, O. Guérin, P.W. Hellings, T. Haahtela, M. Illario, M.C. Inzerilli, K.C. Lodrup Carlsen, P. Kardas, T. Keil, M. Maggio, A. Mendez-Zorrilla, E. Menditto, J. Mercier, J.P. Michel, R. Murray, M. Nogues, I. O'Byrne-Maguire, D. Pappa, A.S. Parent, M. Pastorino, C. Robalo-Cordeiro, B. Samolinski, P. Siciliano, A.M. Teixeira, S.I. Tsartara, A. Valiulis, O. Vandenplas, T. Vasankari, B. Vellas, M. Vollenbroek-Hutten, M. Wickman, A. Yorgancioglu, T. Zuberbier, M. Barbagallo, G.W. Canonica, L. Klimek, S. Maggi, W. Aberer, C. Akdis, I.M. Adcock, I. Agache, C. Albera, F. Alonso-Trujillo, M. Angel Guarcia, I. Annesi-Maesano, J. Apostolo, S.H. Arshad, V. Attalin, A. Avignon, C. Bachert, I. Baroni, E. Bel, M. Benson, C. Bescos, F. Blasi, C. Barbara, K.C. Bergmann, P.L. Bernard, S. Bonini, P.J. Bousquet, B. Branchini, C.E. Brightling, V. Bruguière, C. Bunu, A. Bush, D.P. Caimmi, M.A. Calderon, G. Canovas, V. Cardona, K.H. Carlsen, A. Cesario, E. Chkhartishvili, R. Chiron, T. Chivato, K.F. Chung, M. D'Angelantonio, G. de Carlo, D. Cholley, F. Chorin, B. Combe, B. Compas, D.J. Costa, E. Costa, O. Coste, A. -L. Coupet, G. Crepaldi, A. Custovic, R. Dahl, S.E. Dahlen, P. Demoly, P. Devillier, A. Didier, A.T. Dinh-Xuan, R. Djukanovic, D. Dokic, G. du Toit, R. Dubakiene, A. Dupeyron, R. Emuzyte, A. Fiocchi, A. Wagner, M. Fletcher, J. Fonseca, B. Fougère, A. Gamkrelidze, G. Garces, J. Garcia-Aymeric, B. Garcia-Zapirain, B. Gemicioğlu, C. Gouder, B. Hellquist-Dahl, I. Hermosilla-Gimeno, D. Héve, C. Holland, M. Humbert, M. Hyland, S.L. Johnston, J. Just, M. Jutel, I.P. Kaidashev, M. Kaitov, O. Kalayci, A.F. Kalyoncu, W. Keijser, H. Kerstjens, J. Knezović, M. Kowalski, G.H. Koppelman, T. Kotska, M. Kovac, I. Kull, P. Kuna, V. Kvedariene, V. Lepore, W. Macnee, M. Maggio, A. Magnan, I. Majer, P. Manning, M. Marcucci, T. Marti, M. Masoli, E. Melen, N. Miculinic, F. Mihaltan, B. Milenkovic, J. Millot-Keurinck, H. Mlinarić, I. Momas, S. Montefort, M. Morais-Almeida, T. Moreno-Casbas, R. Mösges, J. Mullol, R. Nadif, M. Nalin, E. Navarro-Pardo, K. Nekam, G. Ninot, D. Paccard, S. Pais, E. Palummeri, P. Panzner, N.K. Papadopoulos, C. Papanikolaou, G. Passalacqua, E. Pastor, M. Perrot, D. Plavec, T.A. Popov, D.S. Postma, D. Price, N. Raffort, J.C. Reuzeau, J.M. Robine, F. Rodenas, F. Robusto, N. Roche, A. Romano, V. Romano, J. Rosado-Pinto, F. Roubille, F. Ruiz, D. Ryan, T. Salcedo, P. Schmid-Grendelmeier, H. Schulz, H.J. Schunemann, E. Serrano, A. Sheikh, M. Shields, N. Siafakas, N. Scichilone, P. Siciliano, I. Skrindo, H.A. Smit, S. Sourdet, E. Sousa-Costa, O. Spranger, T. Sooronbaev, V. Sruk, P.J. Sterk, A. Todo-Bom, J. Touchon, D. Tramontano, M. Triggiani, S.I. Tsartara, A.L. Valero, E. Valovirta, E. van Ganse, M. van Hage, M. van den Berge, O. Vandenplas, M.T. Ventura, I. Vergara, G. Vezzani, D. Vidal, G. Viegi, M. Wagemann, B. Whalley, M. Wickman, N. Wilson, P.K. Yiallouros, M. Žagar, A. Zaidi, M. Zidarn, E.J. Hoogerwerf, J. Usero, R. Zuffada, A. Senn, B. de Oliveira-Alves |
| Abstract |
The Strategic Implementation Plan of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing (EIP on AHA) proposed six Action Groups. After almost three years of activity, many achievements have been obtained through commitments or collaborative work of the Action Groups. However, they have often worked in silos and, consequently, synergies between Action Groups have been proposed to strengthen the triple win of the EIP on AHA. The paper presents the methodology and current status of the Task Force on EIP on AHA synergies. Synergies are in line with the Action Groups' new Renovated Action Plan (2016-2018) to ensure that their future objectives are coherent and fully connected. The outcomes and impact of synergies are using the Monitoring and Assessment Framework for the EIP on AHA (MAFEIP). Eight proposals for synergies have been approved by the Task Force: Five cross-cutting synergies which can be used for all current and future synergies as they consider overarching domains (appropriate polypharmacy, citizen empowerment, teaching and coaching on AHA, deployment of synergies to EU regions, Responsible Research and Innovation), and three cross-cutting synergies focussing on current Action Group activities (falls, frailty, integrated care and chronic respiratory diseases). |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 20% |
| Finland | 1 | 20% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 20% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 40% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 240 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Finland | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 238 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 26 | 11% |
| Professor | 26 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 20 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 14 | 6% |
| Other | 57 | 24% |
| Unknown | 75 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 52 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 20 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 19 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 10 | 4% |
| Psychology | 9 | 4% |
| Other | 43 | 18% |
| Unknown | 87 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 27 June 2019.
All research outputs
#6,402,596
of 25,774,185 outputs
Outputs from The journal of nutrition, health & aging
#761
of 2,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,646
of 424,081 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The journal of nutrition, health & aging
#10
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,774,185 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,006 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 424,081 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 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 67% of its contemporaries.