↓ Skip to main content

Rehabilitation Interventions for Older Individuals With Cognitive Impairment Post-Hip Fracture: A Systematic Review

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, November 2015
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 (82nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
9 X users

Readers on

mendeley
260 Mendeley
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.
Article details
Title
Rehabilitation Interventions for Older Individuals With Cognitive Impairment Post-Hip Fracture: A Systematic Review
Published in
Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, November 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.jamda.2015.10.004
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Currently, most rehabilitation services for individuals who sustain a hip fracture are not designed to meet the complex needs of those who also have cognitive impairment. The goal of this review was to identify current best practices for rehabilitation in long-term care settings and approaches to optimize outcomes among individuals with dementia and other cognitive impairments post-hip fracture. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement was used to guide the review. Five electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL (EBSCO), Medline (EBSCO), and PsycINFO (EBSCO), were searched for intervention studies published in English language journals. Studies were eligible if they focused on rehabilitation interventions post-hip fracture among older individuals (≥65 years) with cognitive impairment who were living in or transferred to long-term care or postacute/rehabilitation settings post-hip fracture. Studies were excluded if they did not enroll individuals with cognitive impairment, the study was descriptive without any intervention content, or the intervention components were only medication, surgical approach or medical treatment. A total of 4478 records were identified, 1915 of which were duplicative, 2563 were relevant based on title, and after careful review 7 studies were included. Two included studies were randomized controlled trials, one was a single group pre- and post-test, one a descriptive comparison between those with and without cognitive impairment, one a case controlled matched trial, one a nonequivalent groups trial, and one a case report. The interventions varied between manipulating the type and amount of exercise or testing multifactorial issues including environmental interventions and the use of an interdisciplinary team to address psychosocial factors, medication management, use of assistive devices, and specific preferences or concerns of the individuals. The evidence summarized in this review suggests that it is feasible to implement rehabilitation programs focused on individuals with cognitive impairment in postacute care settings. Moreover, there was evidence to suggest that intensive rehabilitation and exercise activities are beneficial, although innovative approaches may be needed to engage individuals with cognitive impairment.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 260 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Italy 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 257 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 13%
Researcher 24 9%
Student > Bachelor 21 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 20 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 5%
Other 55 21%
Unknown 92 35%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 45 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 45 17%
Psychology 19 7%
Social Sciences 11 4%
Sports and Recreations 8 3%
Other 29 11%
Unknown 103 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 19 April 2017.
All research outputs
#5,430,804
of 29,688,655 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the American Medical Directors Association
#1,225
of 3,534 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,605
of 406,774 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the American Medical Directors Association
#16
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,688,655 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,534 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. 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 406,774 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.