↓ Skip to main content

Dignity in the care of older people – a review of the theoretical and empirical literature

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Nursing, July 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
119 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Dignity in the care of older people – a review of the theoretical and empirical literature
Published in
BMC Nursing, July 2008
DOI 10.1186/1472-6955-7-11
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ann Gallagher, Sarah Li, Paul Wainwright, Ian Rees Jones, Diana Lee

Abstract

Dignity has become a central concern in UK health policy in relation to older and vulnerable people. The empirical and theoretical literature relating to dignity is extensive and as likely to confound and confuse as to clarify the meaning of dignity for nurses in practice. The aim of this paper is critically to examine the literature and to address the following questions: What does dignity mean? What promotes and diminishes dignity? And how might dignity be operationalised in the care of older people?This paper critically reviews the theoretical and empirical literature relating to dignity and clarifies the meaning and implications of dignity in relation to the care of older people. If nurses are to provide dignified care clarification is an essential first step.

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 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Spain 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 113 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 18%
Student > Master 18 15%
Student > Postgraduate 10 8%
Lecturer 9 8%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Other 37 31%
Unknown 15 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 18%
Social Sciences 17 14%
Psychology 9 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 5%
Other 21 18%
Unknown 18 15%

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 28 January 2014.
All research outputs
#7,138,533
of 12,439,665 outputs
Outputs from BMC Nursing
#189
of 332 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,811
of 228,318 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Nursing
#5
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,439,665 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 332 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 228,318 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 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.