↓ 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

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
134 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1226 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 1,226 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%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Romania 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1211 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 200 16%
Student > Master 183 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 96 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 83 7%
Researcher 66 5%
Other 173 14%
Unknown 425 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 208 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 178 15%
Sports and Recreations 162 13%
Psychology 35 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 2%
Other 151 12%
Unknown 464 38%
Attention Score in Context

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
#13,392,902
of 22,725,280 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#1,976
of 3,154 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,376
of 209,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#23
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,725,280 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,154 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 209,651 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.