↓ Skip to main content

Stakeholders perspectives on the key components of community-based interventions coordinating care in dementia: a qualitative systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 Mendeley
Title
Stakeholders perspectives on the key components of community-based interventions coordinating care in dementia: a qualitative systematic review
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2725-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amy Backhouse, David A. Richards, Rose McCabe, Ross Watkins, Chris Dickens

Abstract

Interventions aiming to coordinate services for the community-based dementia population vary in components, organisation and implementation. In this review we aimed to investigate the views of stakeholders on the key components of community-based interventions coordinating care in dementia. We searched four databases from inception to June 2015; Medline, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE and PsycINFO, this was aided by a search of four grey literature databases, and backward and forward citation tracking of included papers. Title and abstract screening was followed by a full text screen by two independent reviewers, and quality was assessed using the CASP appraisal tool. We then conducted thematic synthesis on extracted data. A total of seven papers from five independent studies were included in the review, and encompassed the views of over 100 participants from three countries. Through thematic synthesis we identified 32 initial codes that were grouped into 5 second-order themes: (1) case manager had four associated codes and described preferences for the case manager personal and professional attributes, including a sound knowledge in dementia and availability of local services; (2) communication had five associated codes and emphasized the importance stakeholders placed on multichannel communication with service users, as well as between multidisciplinary teams and across organisations; (3) intervention had 11 associated codes which focused primarily on the practicalities of implementation such as the contact type and frequency between case managers and service users, and the importance of case manager training and service evaluation; (4) resources had five associated codes which outlined stakeholder views on the required resources for coordinating interventions and potential overlap with existing resources, as well as arising issues when available resources do not meet those required for successful implementation; and (5) support had seven associated codes that reflect the importance that was placed on the support network around the case manager and the investment of professionals involved directly in care as well as the wider professional network. The synthesis of relevant qualitative studies has shown how various stakeholder groups considered dementia care coordination interventions to be acceptable, useful and appropriate for dementia care, and have clear preferences for components, implementation methods and settings of these interventions. By incorporating stakeholders' perspectives and preferences when planning and developing coordinating interventions we may increase the likelihood of successful implementation and patient benefits.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users 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 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 95 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 14%
Researcher 12 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 4%
Other 16 17%
Unknown 27 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 22 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 17%
Social Sciences 8 8%
Psychology 7 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 5%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 31 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 03 March 2020.
All research outputs
#13,748,502
of 24,526,614 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#4,504
of 8,286 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,401
of 447,372 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#64
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,526,614 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,286 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 447,372 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.