↓ Skip to main content

McMaster University

A Scoping Review of Physical Rehabilitation in Long-Term Care: Interventions, Outcomes, Tools*

Overview of attention for article published in Canadian Journal on Aging, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#30 of 557)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
34 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 Mendeley
Title
A Scoping Review of Physical Rehabilitation in Long-Term Care: Interventions, Outcomes, Tools*
Published in
Canadian Journal on Aging, November 2017
DOI 10.1017/s071498081700040x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Caitlin McArthur, Jenna C. Gibbs, Ruchit Patel, Alexandra Papaioannou, Paula Neves, Jaimie Killingbeck, John Hirdes, James Milligan, Katherine Berg, Lora Giangregorio

Abstract

Residents in long-term care (LTC) often require physical rehabilitation (PR) to maintain/improve physical function. This scoping review described the breadth of literature regarding PR in LTC to date, synthesizing PR interventions that have been evaluated, outcomes used, and tools for determining service eligibility. A structured search, conducted in six licensed databases and grey literature, identified 381 articles for inclusion. Most interventions were delivered and evaluated at the resident level and typically were multicomponent exercise programs. Performance-based measures, activities of daily living, and mood were the most frequently reported outcomes. A key knowledge gap was PR in relation to goals, such as quality of life. Future studies should reflect medically complex residents who live in LTC, and length of residents' stay should be differentiated. Intervention studies should also explore realistic delivery methods; moreover, tool development for determining service eligibility is necessary to ensure equality in rehabilitative care across the LTC sector.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 106 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 15%
Student > Master 15 14%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Researcher 10 9%
Professor 4 4%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 35 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 24 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 13%
Social Sciences 7 7%
Sports and Recreations 6 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 37 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 23 December 2020.
All research outputs
#1,672,752
of 25,490,562 outputs
Outputs from Canadian Journal on Aging
#30
of 557 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,581
of 337,321 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Canadian Journal on Aging
#1
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,490,562 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 557 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 337,321 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 90% 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 all of them