↓ Skip to main content

Resolving inconsistencies in trends in old-age disability: Report from a technical working group

Overview of attention for article published in Demography, August 2004
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
4 policy sources

Citations

dimensions_citation
267 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
188 Mendeley
Title
Resolving inconsistencies in trends in old-age disability: Report from a technical working group
Published in
Demography, August 2004
DOI 10.1353/dem.2004.0022
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vicki A. Freedman, Eileen Crimmins, Robert F. Schoeni, Brenda C. Spillman, Hakan Aykan, Ellen Kramarow, Kenneth Land, James Lubitz, Kenneth Manton, Linda G. Martin, Diane Shinberg, Timothy Waidmann

Abstract

In September 2002, a technical working group met to resolve previously published inconsistencies across national surveys in trends in activity limitations among the older population. The 12-person panel prepared estimates from five national data sets and investigated methodological sources of the inconsistencies among the population aged 70 and older from the early 1980s to 2001. Although the evidence was mixed for the 1980s and it is difficult to pinpoint when in the 1990s the decline began, during the mid- and late 1990s, the panel found consistent declines on the order of 1%-2.5% per year for two commonly used measures in the disability literature: difficulty with daily activities and help with daily activities. Mixed evidence was found for a third measure: the use of help or equipment with daily activities. The panel also found agreement across surveys that the proportion of older persons who receive help with bathing has declined at the same time as the proportion who use only equipment (but not personal care) to bathe has increased. In comparing findings across surveys, the panel found that the period, definition of disability, treatment of the institutionalized population, and age standardizing of results were important to consider. The implications of the findings for policy, national survey efforts, and further research are discussed.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 188 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Spain 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 183 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 11%
Student > Master 13 7%
Researcher 11 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 5%
Student > Bachelor 7 4%
Other 16 9%
Unknown 112 60%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 27 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 11 6%
Unknown 116 62%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 01 June 2016.
All research outputs
#2,469,544
of 22,860,626 outputs
Outputs from Demography
#620
of 1,858 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,659
of 53,841 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Demography
#4
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,860,626 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,858 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 53,841 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.