↓ Skip to main content

The effectiveness of community-based coordinating interventions in dementia care: a meta-analysis and subgroup analysis of intervention components

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
21 tweeters
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 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
The effectiveness of community-based coordinating interventions in dementia care: a meta-analysis and subgroup analysis of intervention components
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2677-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amy Backhouse, Obioha C. Ukoumunne, David A. Richards, Rose McCabe, Ross Watkins, Chris Dickens

Abstract

Interventions aiming to coordinate services for the community-based dementia population vary in components, organisation and implementation. In this review we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of community-based care coordinating interventions on health outcomes and investigate whether specific components of interventions influence their effects. We searched four databases from inception to April 2017: Medline, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE and PsycINFO. This was aided by a search of four grey literature databases, and backward and forward citation tracking of included papers. Title and abstract screening was followed by a full text screen by two independent reviewers, and quality was assessed using the CASP appraisal tool. We then conducted meta-analyses and subgroup analyses. A total of 14 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 10,372 participants were included in the review. Altogether we carried out 12 meta-analyses and 19 subgroup analyses. Meta-analyses found coordinating interventions showed a statistically significant improvement in both patient behaviour measured using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) (mean difference (MD) = -9.5; 95% confidence interval (CI): -18.1 to -1.0; p = 0.03; number of studies (n) = 4; I(2) = 88%) and caregiver burden (standardised mean difference (SMD) = -0.54; 95% CI: -1.01 to -0.07; p = 0.02; n = 5, I(2) = 92%) compared to the control group. Subgroup analyses found interventions using a case manager with a nursing background showed a greater positive effect on caregiver quality of life than those that used case managers from other professional backgrounds (SMD = 0.94 versus 0.03, respectively; p < 0.001). Interventions that did not provide supervision for the case managers showed greater effectiveness for reducing the percentage of patients that are institutionalised compared to those that provided supervision (odds ratio (OR) = 0.27 versus 0.96 respectively; p = 0.02). There was little evidence of effects on other outcomes, or that other intervention components modify the intervention effects. Results show that coordinating interventions in dementia care has a positive impact on some outcomes, namely patient behaviour and caregiver burden, but the evidence is inconsistent and results were not strong enough to draw definitive conclusions on general effectiveness. With the rising prevalence of dementia, effective complex interventions will be necessary to provide high quality and effective care for patients, and facilitate collaboration of health, social and third sector services.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 20%
Researcher 13 20%
Other 6 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 11 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 17 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 21%
Psychology 9 14%
Social Sciences 8 12%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 12 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 03 March 2020.
All research outputs
#1,255,037
of 15,162,508 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#515
of 5,206 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,680
of 317,206 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#67
of 554 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,162,508 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,206 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
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 317,206 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 554 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.