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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Oral/dental items in the resident assessment instrument – minimum Data Set 2.0 lack validity: results of a retrospective, longitudinal validation study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Population Health Metrics, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12963-016-0108-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Matthias Hoben, Jeffrey W. Poss, Peter G. Norton, Carole A. Estabrooks |
| Abstract |
Oral health in nursing home residents is poor. Robust, mandated assessment tools such as the Resident Assessment Instrument - Minimum Data Set (RAI-MDS) 2.0 are key to monitoring and improving quality of oral health care in nursing homes. However, psychometric properties of RAI-MDS 2.0 oral/dental items have been challenged and criterion validity of these items has never been assessed. We used 73,829 RAI-MDS 2.0 records (13,118 residents), collected in a stratified random sample of 30 urban nursing homes in Western Canada (2007-2012). We derived a subsample of all residents (n = 2,711) with an admission and two or more subsequent annual assessments. Using Generalized Estimating Equations, adjusted for known covariates of nursing home residents' oral health, we assessed the association of oral/dental problems with time, dentate status, dementia, debris, and daily cleaning. Prevalence of oral/dental problems fluctuated (4.8 %-5.6 %) with no significant differences across time. This range of prevalence is substantially smaller than the ones reported by studies using clinical assessments by dental professionals. Denture wearers were less likely than dentate residents to have oral/dental problems (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.458, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.308, 0.680). Residents lacking teeth and not wearing dentures had higher odds than dentate residents of oral/dental problems (adjusted OR = 2.718, 95 % CI: 1.845, 4.003). Oral/dental problems were more prevalent in persons with debris (OR = 2.187, 95 % CI: 1.565, 3.057). Of the other variables assessed, only age at assessment was significantly associated with oral/dental problems. Robust, reliable RAI-MDS 2.0 oral health indicators are vital to monitoring and improving oral health related quality and safety in nursing homes. However, severe underdetection of oral/dental problems and lack of association of well-known oral health predictors with oral/dental problems suggest validity problems. Lacking teeth and not wearing dentures should be considered an indicator for urgent oral/dental treatment needs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 3 | 75% |
| United States | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 119 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 20 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 11% |
| Researcher | 11 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 19 | 16% |
| Unknown | 41 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 4% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 13 | 11% |
| Unknown | 43 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 14 November 2016.
All research outputs
#13,407,768
of 22,896,955 outputs
Outputs from Population Health Metrics
#260
of 392 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,837
of 316,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Population Health Metrics
#7
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,896,955 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 392 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.7. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 316,323 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.