↓ Skip to main content

Medical day hospital care for older people versus alternative forms of care

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
53 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
138 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
Medical day hospital care for older people versus alternative forms of care
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001730.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lesley Brown, Anne Forster, John Young, Tom Crocker, Alex Benham, Peter Langhorne

Abstract

The proportion of the world's population aged over 60 years is increasing. Therefore, there is a need to examine different methods of healthcare provision for this population. Medical day hospitals provide multidisciplinary health services to older people in one location. To examine the effectiveness of medical day hospitals for older people in preventing death, disability, institutionalisation and improving subjective health status. Our search included the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Register of Studies, CENTRAL (2013, Issue 7), MEDLINE via Ovid (1950-2013 ), EMBASE via Ovid (1947-2013) and CINAHL via EbscoHost (1980-2013). We also conducted cited reference searches, searched conference proceedings and trial registries, hand searched select journals, and contacted relevant authors and researchers to inquire about additional data. Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing medical day hospitals with alternative care for older people (mean/median > 60 years of age). Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data from included trials. We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. Trials were sub-categorised as comprehensive care, domiciliary care or no comprehensive care. Sixteen trials (3689 participants) compared day hospitals with comprehensive care (five trials), domiciliary care (seven trials) or no comprehensive care (four trials). Overall there was low quality evidence from these trials for the following results.For the outcome of death, there was no strong evidence for or against day hospitals compared to other treatments overall (odds ratio (OR) 1.05; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.28; P = 0.66), or to comprehensive care (OR 1.26; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.82; P = 0.22), domiciliary care (OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.61 to 1.55; P = 0.89), or no comprehensive care (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.22; P = 0.43).For the outcome of death or deterioration in activities of daily living (ADL), there was no strong evidence for day hospital attendance compared to other treatments (OR 1.07; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.49; P = 0.70), or to comprehensive care (OR 1.18; 95% CI 0.63 to 2.18; P = 0.61), domiciliary care (OR 1.41; 95% CI 0.82 to 2.42; P = 0.21) or no comprehensive care (OR 0.76; 95% CI 0.56 to 1.05; P = 0.09).For the outcome of death or poor outcome (institutional care, dependency, deterioration in physical function), there was no strong evidence for day hospitals compared to other treatments (OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.15; P = 0.49), or compared to comprehensive care (OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.40; P = 0.74) or domiciliary care (OR 1.08; 95% CI 0.67 to 1.74; P = 0.75). However, compared with no comprehensive care there was a difference in favour of day hospitals (OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.99; P = 0.04).For the outcome of death or institutional care, there was no strong evidence for day hospitals compared to other treatments overall (OR 0.85; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.14; P = 0.28), or to comprehensive care (OR 1.00; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.44; P = 0.99), domiciliary care (OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.57 to1.92; P = 0. 88) or no comprehensive care (OR 0.63; 95% CI 0.40 to 1.00; P = 0.05).For the outcome of deterioration in ADL, there was no strong evidence that day hospital attendance had a different effect than other treatments overall (OR 1.11; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.80; P = 0.67) or compared with comprehensive care (OR 1.21; 0.58 to 2.52; P = 0.61), or domiciliary care (OR 1.59; 95% CI 0.87 to 2.90; P = 0.13). However, day hospital patients showed a reduced odds of deterioration compared with those receiving no comprehensive care (OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.97; P = 0.04) and significant subgroup differences (P = 0.04).For the outcome of requiring institutional care, there was no strong evidence for day hospitals compared to other treatments (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.58 to 1.21; P = 0.35), or to comprehensive care (OR 0.91; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.19; P = 0.49), domiciliary care (OR 1.49; 95% CI 0.53 to 4.25; P = 0.45), or no comprehensive care (OR 0.58; 95% CI 0.28 to 1.20; P = 0.14). There is low quality evidence that medical day hospitals appear effective compared to no comprehensive care for the combined outcome of death or poor outcome, and for deterioration in ADL. There is no clear evidence for other outcomes, or an advantage over other medical care provision.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 53 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 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Chile 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Unknown 134 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 30 22%
Student > Master 29 21%
Researcher 17 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 11%
Student > Bachelor 12 9%
Other 35 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 35%
Unspecified 33 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 12%
Social Sciences 12 9%
Psychology 12 9%
Other 16 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 16 August 2019.
All research outputs
#488,256
of 13,516,269 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,496
of 10,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,512
of 231,675 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#40
of 256 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,516,269 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,622 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 231,675 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 256 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.