| Title |
Study protocol: cost-effectiveness of multidisciplinary nutritional support for undernutrition in older adults in nursing home and home-care: cluster randomized controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nutrition Journal, August 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1475-2891-13-86 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anne Marie Beck, Annette Gøgsig Christensen, Birthe Stenbæk Hansen, Signe Damsbo-Svendsen, Tina Kreinfeldt Skovgaard Møller, Eigil Boll Hansen, Hans Keiding |
| Abstract |
Older adults in nursing home and home-care are a particularly high-risk population for weight loss or poor nutrition. One negative consequence of undernutrition is increased health care costs. Several potentially modifiable nutritional risk factors increase the likelihood of weight loss or poor nutrition. Hence a structured and multidisciplinary approach, focusing on the nutritional risk factors and involving e.g. dieticians, occupational therapists, and physiotherapist, may be necessary to achieve benefits. Up till now a few studies have been done evaluating the cost-effectiveness of nutritional support among undernourished older adults and none of these have used such a multidisciplinary approach. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Costa Rica | 1 | 17% |
| Brazil | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 4 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 278 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 273 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 46 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 35 | 13% |
| Researcher | 31 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 17 | 6% |
| Other | 45 | 16% |
| Unknown | 82 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 59 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 51 | 18% |
| Sports and Recreations | 12 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 4% |
| Other | 41 | 15% |
| Unknown | 92 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 07 August 2020.
All research outputs
#2,963,156
of 23,330,477 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition Journal
#617
of 1,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,492
of 237,925 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition Journal
#18
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,330,477 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,443 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 237,925 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.