| Title |
Effective health care for older people resident in care homes: the optimal study protocol for realist review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, May 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-3-49 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Claire Goodman, Adam L Gordon, Finbarr Martin, Sue L Davies, Steve Iliffe, Clive Bowman, Justine Schneider, Julienne Meyer, Christina Victor, Heather Gage, John RF Gladman, Tom Dening |
| Abstract |
Care homes in the UK rely on general practice for access to specialist medical and nursing care as well as referral to therapists and secondary care. Service delivery to care homes is highly variable in both quantity and quality. This variability is also evident in the commissioning and organisation of care home-specific services that range from the payment of incentives to general practitioners (GPs) to visit care homes, to the creation of care home specialist teams and outreach services run by geriatricians. No primary studies or systematic reviews have robustly evaluated the impact of these different approaches on organisation and resident-level outcomes. Our aim is to identify factors which may explain the perceived or demonstrated effectiveness of programmes to improve health-related outcomes in older people living in care homes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 | 8 | 53% |
| Portugal | 1 | 7% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 7% |
| Ireland | 1 | 7% |
| Canada | 1 | 7% |
| Spain | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 2 | 13% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 13% |
| Scientists | 2 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 164 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 6 | 4% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 157 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 26 | 16% |
| Researcher | 25 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 10% |
| Librarian | 9 | 5% |
| Other | 40 | 24% |
| Unknown | 29 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 35 | 21% |
| Social Sciences | 16 | 10% |
| Psychology | 16 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 20 | 12% |
| Unknown | 37 | 23% |
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 20 March 2017.
All research outputs
#3,159,795
of 22,756,196 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#590
of 1,990 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,907
of 226,407 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#7
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,756,196 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 1,990 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 226,407 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.