↓ Skip to main content

A best practice fall prevention exercise program to improve balance, strength / power, and psychosocial health in older adults: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Geriatrics, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
538 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.
Title
A best practice fall prevention exercise program to improve balance, strength / power, and psychosocial health in older adults: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, October 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2318-13-105
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yves J Gschwind, Reto W Kressig, Andre Lacroix, Thomas Muehlbauer, Barbara Pfenninger, Urs Granacher

Abstract

With increasing age neuromuscular deficits (e.g., sarcopenia) may result in impaired physical performance and an increased risk for falls. Prominent intrinsic fall-risk factors are age-related decreases in balance and strength / power performance as well as cognitive decline. Additional studies are needed to develop specifically tailored exercise programs for older adults that can easily be implemented into clinical practice. Thus, the objective of the present trial is to assess the effects of a fall prevention program that was developed by an interdisciplinary expert panel on measures of balance, strength / power, body composition, cognition, psychosocial well-being, and falls self-efficacy in healthy older adults. Additionally, the time-related effects of detraining are tested.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 538 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 4 <1%
Portugal 3 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Romania 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 522 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 122 23%
Student > Bachelor 111 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 66 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 54 10%
Researcher 43 8%
Other 93 17%
Unknown 49 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 132 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 113 21%
Sports and Recreations 98 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 4%
Social Sciences 19 4%
Other 79 15%
Unknown 74 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 09 April 2015.
All research outputs
#2,057,083
of 4,977,898 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#320
of 587 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,929
of 105,137 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#18
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,977,898 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 56th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 587 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 105,137 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 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.