| Title |
Diabetes in Long-Term Care Facilities
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Diabetes Reports, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11892-013-0464-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Aaditya Singhal, Alissa R. Segal, Medha N. Munshi |
| Abstract |
With the aging of the population and longer life expectancies, the prevalence of population with multiple chronic medical conditions has increased. Difficulty managing these conditions as people age (because of changes in physical, functional, or cognitive abilities and the complexity of many treatment regimens), has led to more individuals with multiple medical conditions admitted to the long-term care facilities. Older adults with diabetes residing in the long-term facilities represent the most vulnerable of this cohort. Studies that specifically target diabetes management in older population are lacking and those that target diabetes management in the long-term care facilities are even fewer. The lack of knowledge regarding the care of the elderly residing in long-term care with diabetes may lead to treatment failure and higher risk of hyperglycemia, as well as hypoglycemia. In aging populations, hypoglycemia has the potential for catastrophic consequences. To avoid this, the management of older population with diabetes and other medical comorbidities residing in long-term care facilities requires a more holistic approach compared with focusing on individual chronic disease goal achievement. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 26 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 30% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 19% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Unknown | 3 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 30% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 19% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 7% |
| Engineering | 2 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Unknown | 5 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 24 May 2014.
All research outputs
#14,193,746
of 22,751,628 outputs
Outputs from Current Diabetes Reports
#581
of 1,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#173,154
of 307,486 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Diabetes Reports
#11
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,751,628 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,006 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 307,486 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 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 50% of its contemporaries.