↓ Skip to main content

Focus group reflections on the current and future state of cognitive assessment tools in geriatric health care

Overview of attention for article published in Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
Focus group reflections on the current and future state of cognitive assessment tools in geriatric health care
Published in
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, June 2015
DOI 10.2147/ndt.s82881
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jocelyne C Whitehead, Sara A Gambino, Jeffrey D Richter, Jennifer D Ryan

Abstract

This study provides insight into the thoughts and opinions of geriatric health-care professionals toward cognitive assessments and the use of emerging technologies, such as eye-tracking, to supplement current tools. Two focus group sessions were conducted with nurses and physicians who routinely administer neurocognitive assessments to geriatric populations. Video recordings of the focus group sessions were transcribed and a thematic analysis was performed. Participants reported the need for assessment and diagnostic tools that are accessible and efficient, and that are capable of accommodating the rapid growth in the aging population. The prevalence of more complex ailments experienced by older adults has had repercussions in the quality of care that the clients receive, and has contributed to lengthy wait times and resource shortages. Health-care professionals stated that they are hampered by the disjointed structure of the health-care system and that they would benefit from a more efficient allocation of responsibilities made possible through tools that did not require extensive training or certification. Eyetracking-based cognitive assessments were thought to strongly complement this system, yet it was thought that difficulty would be faced in gaining the support and increased uptake by health-care professionals due to the nonintuitive relationship between eyetracking and cognition. The findings suggest that health-care professionals are receptive to the use of eyetracking technology to assess for cognitive health as it would conserve resources by allowing frontline staff to administer assessments with minimal training.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 21%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 9 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 7 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 13%
Computer Science 5 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Neuroscience 3 8%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 9 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 15 June 2015.
All research outputs
#14,914,476
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#1,360
of 3,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,876
of 281,411 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#41
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,132 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 281,411 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.