↓ Skip to main content

Direct Care Workforce Training: Internet Accessibility and Acceptance.

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Gerontological Nursing, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 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
Direct Care Workforce Training: Internet Accessibility and Acceptance.
Published in
Journal of Gerontological Nursing, February 2017
DOI 10.3928/00989134-20170127-01
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel P Ochylski, Clare C Luz, Xiaoxi Shen

Abstract

Evidence exists that web-based learning for health care professionals can improve topic-specific knowledge, increase access to training, and lower training costs. However, limited information exists on the value of online education for improving hands-on skills as part of personal care aide (PCA) training. New PCA training programs are emerging that are fully online or hybrid models that blend online with in-person instruction. Such programs require access to a computer and high-speed internet, which could prove difficult for low-income PCAs who are less likely to own a computer. The current study evaluated a PCA training demonstration that examined issues of internet access, use, and acceptability for PCA training. Results show most trainees prefer a hybrid online/in-person model, but there are gaps in access and acceptability, particularly related to reading ability. These findings have implications for health care providers who deliver training programs aimed at developing a qualified PCA workforce capable of providing competent care to older adults. [Journal of Gerontological Nursing, xx(x), xx-xx.].

X Demographics

X Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 17%
Professor 2 11%
Researcher 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Librarian 1 6%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 6 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 4 22%
Social Sciences 4 22%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 6%
Unknown 9 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 July 2017.
All research outputs
#20,660,571
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Gerontological Nursing
#683
of 922 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#322,489
of 424,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Gerontological Nursing
#17
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 922 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% 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 424,587 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.