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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Oral medicine modification for older adults: a qualitative study of nurses
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMJ Open, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018151 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Aoife Mc Gillicuddy, Abina M Crean, Maria Kelly, Laura Sahm |
| Abstract |
Oral medicines are frequently modified (eg, tablets crushed) for older adults. However, these modifications can have clinical, legal and/or ethical implications. Nurses bear responsibility for medicine administration and hence, perform these modifications. The aim of this study was to investigate the knowledge, attitudes and beliefs of nurses about oral medicine modification for older adults. A qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured, face-to-face interviews with nurses providing care to older adults in acute and long-term care settings. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. Sixteen purposively selected care settings; 4 acute-care and 12 long-term care settings were included. Nurses were recruited by convenience sampling at these sites. Eighteen nurses participated (83% female, 67% long-term care, 33% acute-care, median age (IQR) 38 years (32.5-52.0)). Three major themes: modifying-a necessary evil, nurses' role as patient advocate and modifying-we are working very much as a team and two minor themes: fractional dosing, and covert administration emerged from the data. Nurses viewed oral medicine modifications as being a routine and necessary occurrence in geriatric patient care due to limitations of available formulations and the presence of age-related challenges in drug administration. Nurses' knowledge of residents' requirements ensured that they advocate for those with individualised formulation needs, however, nurses rely on pharmacists for information about modifications. Nurses expressed a desire for supports including increased education and ward-specific, pharmacist-developed recommendations on common modifications. This study has provided useful insights into the views of nurses regarding oral medicine modification for older adults. The unique and varied formulation requirements of older adults must be acknowledged. Increased engagement by healthcare professionals, the pharmaceutical industry, regulatory agencies and policy-makers is required to facilitate the development of age-appropriate formulations. In the interim, practical interventions, informed by the findings of this study, are required. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ireland | 5 | 45% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 18% |
| South Africa | 1 | 9% |
| Canada | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 2 | 18% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 82% |
| Scientists | 1 | 9% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 66 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 11% |
| Lecturer | 4 | 6% |
| Researcher | 4 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 12% |
| Unknown | 26 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 24% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 9 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Unknown | 27 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 11 September 2019.
All research outputs
#2,306,233
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#4,505
of 25,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,051
of 443,583 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#145
of 604 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,593 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 443,583 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 604 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.