↓ Skip to main content

Is it time for comprehensive geriatric assessment to move beyond primary care? The case for targeting medical sub-specialty practice

Overview of attention for article published in Israel Journal of Health Policy Research, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 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
Is it time for comprehensive geriatric assessment to move beyond primary care? The case for targeting medical sub-specialty practice
Published in
Israel Journal of Health Policy Research, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13584-017-0158-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laura K. Byerly, G. Michael Harper

Abstract

Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) as a consultative service for older adults with complex medical and psychosocial challenges has existed for decades. However, studies have often showed inconsistent acceptance and implementation of geriatric recommendations by primary care providers (PCPs) raising doubts about the overall benefits of CGA in this setting. Press and colleagues investigated the patient- and provider-related factors that affect recommendation implementation, and like previous studies, they too found similarly low rates of implementation. In this commentary, we acknowledge the perennial challenges that exist to improving the acceptance of CGA in primary care practice, and we suggest an alternative target: medical sub-specialty practice. By highlighting three medical sub-specialty fields (oncology, nephrology, and cardiology), which have demonstrated that CGA can be incorporated into their respective clinical practices, we argue that CGA may prove to have greater impact in these settings than in primary care. We also propose initial research steps that could further delineate the trends, outcomes, and next steps for such consultations.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 4 17%
Student > Master 3 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Researcher 2 9%
Librarian 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 8 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 13%
Psychology 2 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 4%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 9 39%
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 07 June 2017.
All research outputs
#15,557,505
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from Israel Journal of Health Policy Research
#293
of 600 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,904
of 319,174 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Israel Journal of Health Policy Research
#4
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 600 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 319,174 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.