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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Purchasing and Using Personal Emergency Response Systems (PERS): how decisions are made by community-dwelling seniors in Canada
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Geriatrics, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12877-015-0079-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alexandra C. McKenna, Marita Kloseck, Richard Crilly, Jan Polgar |
| Abstract |
As the demographic of older people continues to grow, health services that support independence among community-dwelling seniors have become increasingly important. Personal Emergency Response Systems (PERS) are medical alert systems, designed to serve as a safety net for seniors living alone. Health care professionals often recommend that seniors in danger of falls or other medical emergencies obtain a PERS. The purpose of the study was to investigate the experience of seniors living with and using a PERS in their daily lives, using a qualitative grounded theory approach. Five focus groups and 10 semi-structured interviews, with a total of 30 participants, were completed using a grounded theory approach. All participants were PERS subscribers over the age of 80, living alone in a naturally occurring retirement community (NORC) with high health service utilization in a major urban centre in Ontario. Constant comparative analysis was used to develop themes and ultimately a model of why and how seniors obtain and use the PERS. Two core themes, unpredictability and decision-making around PERS activation, emerged as major features of the theoretical model. Being able to get help and the psychological value of PERS informed the context of living with a PERS. A number of theoretical conclusions related to unpredictability and the decision-making process around activating PERS were generated. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Singapore | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 60 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 15% |
| Researcher | 9 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 16% |
| Unknown | 17 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 13% |
| Psychology | 7 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 8% |
| Engineering | 4 | 6% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 14 | 23% |
| Unknown | 21 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 27 January 2023.
All research outputs
#4,969,756
of 25,895,862 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#1,364
of 3,729 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,543
of 278,263 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#15
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,895,862 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,729 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 278,263 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.