↓ Skip to main content

Improving the quality of life for older people in long-term care settings

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
Improving the quality of life for older people in long-term care settings
Published in
Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research, May 2014
DOI 10.2217/cer.14.20
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kathy Murphy, Adeline Cooney, Dympna Casey

Abstract

Many governments across Europe and America set maintaining the quality of life (QoL) of older people living in long-term care as a key policy objective; however, much of the evidence reveals that life in many care environments is still routinized and institutionalized. QoL is a term that is widely used but poorly defined and understood. The focus of this Review is on identifying the components of QoL and reviewing strategies for improving QoL in long-term care. Six components of QoL were consistently identified across studies: autonomy, environment, connectedness, meaningful activity, independence and sense of self. A review of strategies for improving QoL revealed that the evidence of effectiveness across studies remains inconclusive. The judgment of quality was often hampered by inadequate details on the study design and the use of nonspecific and wide-ranging QoL tools. Furthermore, high-quality studies are required to determine effectiveness.

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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 4%
Australia 1 2%
Unknown 50 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 19%
Researcher 8 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 12 23%
Unknown 12 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 17%
Social Sciences 5 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 15 28%
Attention Score in Context

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 08 November 2018.
All research outputs
#14,198,017
of 22,758,963 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research
#329
of 736 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,803
of 227,857 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research
#5
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,758,963 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 736 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 227,857 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.