The effectiveness and efficiency of memory assessment services (MASs) is unknown. Our aim was to determine if a typology can be constructed, based on shared structural and process characteristics, as a basis for a non-randomized evaluation of their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.
Survey of random sample of 73 MASs in 2015; comparison of characteristics and investigation of inter-correlation.
It was not possible to group characteristics to form the basis of a typology of MASs. However, there was considerable variation in staff numbers (20-fold), new patients per whole-time equivalent (WTE) staff (20-fold), skill mix and the nurse:doctor ratio (1-10). The operational performance also varied: first appointments (50-120 minutes); time for first follow-up (2-12 weeks); frequency of follow-up in first year (1-5). These differences were not associated with the number of new patients per WTE staff or the accreditation status of the MAS. Post diagnosis, all MASs provided pharmacological treatment but the availability of non-pharmacological support varied, with half providing none or only one intervention while others providing four or more.
In the absence of any clear typology, evaluation of MASs will need to focus on the impact of individual structural and process characteristics on outcomes.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 17 March 2021.
All research outputs
#7,745,521
of 28,766,646 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Public Health
#1,179
of 2,605 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,205
of 331,398 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Public Health
#36
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,766,646 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,605 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 331,398 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
