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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Quedas recorrentes e fatores de risco em idosos institucionalizados
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, January 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1590/1413-81232018241.35472016 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lidiane Maria de Brito Macedo Ferreira, Karyna Myrelly Oliveira Bezerra de Figueiredo Ribeiro, Javier Jerez-Roig, José Rodolfo Torres Araújo, Kênio Costa de Lima |
| Abstract |
Recurrent falls constitute a high risk for morbidity and mortality among older people, especially institutionalized individuals, due to greater frailty and functional decline in this group. The aim of this study was to identify risk factors associated with recurrent falls among institutionalized older persons. A longitudinal cohort study was conducted over a one-year period with a study sample consisting of individuals aged 60 years and over living in 10 Nursing homes (NH) who were able to walk and had preserved cognitive ability. The older persons and carers were asked about the occurrence of falls over the last twelve months. The older persons were considered recurrent fallers if they had had two or more falls during this period. Institutional, sociodemographic and health data was also collected using questionnaires and the residents' medical records. One hundred and thirty individuals were included in the sample out of a total of 364 older people living in the NH. The incidence of recurrent falls was 26.9% (CI95% = 22.4 - 31.5). The results of the chi-square test and logistic regression adopting a significance level of 0.05 showed that fatigue was a risk factor for recurrent falls(p = 0.001; RR = 2.9) and that the use of beta blockers was a protective factor (p = 0.010; RR = 0.1). It was concluded that recurrent falls are common in NH and that fatigue constitutes an important risk factor. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 103 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 11 | 11% |
| Unknown | 55 | 53% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 20 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 3% |
| Sports and Recreations | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 7% |
| Unknown | 58 | 56% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 05 February 2019.
All research outputs
#6,600,606
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#355
of 2,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,734
of 446,429 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#12
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,037 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 446,429 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.