↓ Skip to main content

Effect of a Biobehavioral Environmental Approach on Disability Among Low-Income Older Adults

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Internal Medicine, February 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
27 news outlets
blogs
6 blogs
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
111 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
210 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
Effect of a Biobehavioral Environmental Approach on Disability Among Low-Income Older Adults
Published in
JAMA Internal Medicine, February 2019
DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.6026
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Disability among older adults is a strong predictor of health outcomes, health service use, and health care costs. Few interventions have reduced disability among older adults. To determine whether a 10-session, home-based, multidisciplinary program reduces disability. In this randomized clinical trial of 300 low-income community-dwelling adults with a disability in Baltimore, Maryland, between March 18, 2012, and April 29, 2016, aged 65 years or older, cognitively intact, and with self-reported difficulty with 1 or more activities of daily living (ADLs) or 2 or more instrumental ADLs (IADLs), participants were interviewed in their home at baseline, 5 months (end point), and 12 months (follow-up) by trained research assistants who were masked to the group allocation. Participants were randomized to either the intervention (CAPABLE) group (n = 152) or the attention control group (n = 148) through a computer-based assignment scheme, stratified by sex in randomized blocks. Intention-to-treat analysis was used to assess the intervention. Data were analyzed from September 2017 through August 2018. The CAPABLE group received up to 10 home visits over 5 months by occupational therapists, registered nurses, and home modifiers to address self-identified functional goals by enhancing individual capacity and the home environment. The control group received 10 social home visits by a research assistant. Disability with ADLs or IADLs at 5 months. Each ADL and IADL task was self-scored from 0 to 2 according to whether in the previous month the person did not have difficulty and did not need help (0), did not need help but had difficulty (1), or needed help regardless of difficulty (2). The overall score ranged from 0 to 16 points. Of the 300 people randomized to either the CAPABLE group (n = 152) or the control group (n = 148), 133 of the CAPABLE participants (87.5%) were women with a mean (SD) age of 75.7 (7.6) years; 126 (82.9%) self-identified as black. Of the controls, 129 (87.2%) were women with a mean (SD) age of 75.4 (7.4) years; 133 (89.9%) self-identified as black. CAPABLE participation resulted in 30% reduction in ADL disability scores at 5 months (relative risk [RR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54-0.93; P = .01) vs control participation. CAPABLE participation resulted in a statistically nonsignificant 17% reduction in IADL disability scores (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.65-1.06; P = .13) vs control participation. Participants in the CAPABLE group vs those in the control group were more likely to report that the program made their life easier (82.3% vs 43.1%; P < .001), helped them take care of themselves (79.8% vs 35.5%; P < .001), and helped them gain confidence in managing daily challenges (79.9% vs 37.7%; P < .001). Low-income community-dwelling older adults who received the CAPABLE intervention experienced substantial decrease in disability; disability may be modifiable through addressing both the person and the environment. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01576133.

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 111 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 210 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 %
Unknown 210 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 10%
Student > Master 20 10%
Researcher 18 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 6%
Student > Bachelor 10 5%
Other 37 18%
Unknown 93 44%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 47 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 9%
Social Sciences 12 6%
Psychology 8 4%
Sports and Recreations 5 2%
Other 17 8%
Unknown 102 49%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 330. 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 21 January 2026.
All research outputs
#128,386
of 34,566,597 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Internal Medicine
#706
of 6,247 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,200
of 487,998 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Internal Medicine
#11
of 133 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,566,597 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,247 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 157.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 487,998 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 133 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.