| Title |
Does one size fit all? Assessing the preferences of older and younger people for attributes of quality of life
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Quality of Life Research, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11136-016-1391-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Julie Ratcliffe, Emily Lancsar, Thomas Flint, Billingsley Kaambwa, Ruth Walker, Gill Lewin, Mary Luszcz, Ian D. Cameron |
| Abstract |
To systematically compare, via ranking and best worst tasks, the relative importance of key dimensions of quality of life for younger and older people. A web-based survey was developed for administration to two Australia-wide community-based samples comprising younger people aged 18-64 years and older people aged 65 years and above. Respondents were asked to rank 12 quality of life dimensions. Respondents also completed a successive best worst task using the same 12 quality of life dimensions. The relative importance of the quality of life dimensions differed for younger and older person samples. For older people, the ability to be independent and to have control over their daily lives were particularly important for their overall quality of life whereas for younger people, mental health was considered most important. Many interventions accessed by older people in geriatric medicine and aged care sectors have a broader impact upon quality of life beyond health status. The findings from this study indicate that a focus on broader aspects of quality of life may also be consistent with the preferences of older people themselves as to what constitutes quality of life from their perspective. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 Kingdom | 2 | 50% |
| Australia | 1 | 25% |
| United States | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 59 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 15% |
| Researcher | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 17% |
| Unknown | 17 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 10% |
| Psychology | 4 | 7% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 10 | 17% |
| Unknown | 23 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 March 2020.
All research outputs
#3,149,735
of 22,985,065 outputs
Outputs from Quality of Life Research
#265
of 2,911 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,187
of 343,403 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Quality of Life Research
#7
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,985,065 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,911 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 343,403 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.