↓ Skip to main content

Menu Planning in Residential Aged Care—The Level of Choice and Quality of Planning of Meals Available to Residents

Overview of attention for article published in Nutrients, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
Title
Menu Planning in Residential Aged Care—The Level of Choice and Quality of Planning of Meals Available to Residents
Published in
Nutrients, September 2015
DOI 10.3390/nu7095354
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karen Abbey, Olivia Wright, Sandra Capra

Abstract

Choice of food is an imperative aspect of quality of life for residents in Residential Aged Care Homes (RACHs), where overall choice and control is diminished upon entering a home to receive care. The purpose of this study was to examine the current strategies of menu planning in a range of RACHs in Australia, and whether this facilitated appropriate levels of choice for residents receiving texture modified and general diets. The study comprised a National Menu Survey using a new survey instrument collecting general information about the RACH and foodservice system, menu information and staffing information (n = 247); a national menu analysis (n = 161) and an observational case study of 36 meal environments. Choice was low for the entire sample, but particularly for those receiving pureed texture modified diets. Evidence of menu planning to facilitate the inclusion of choice and alternatives was limited. Regulation and monitoring of the Australian Aged Care Accreditation Standards needs to be strengthened to mandate improvement of the choice and variety offered to residents, particularly those on pureed texture modified diets. Further research on how menu choice and a lack of variety in meals affects the quality of life residents is needed in this context, but current evidence suggests the effect would be detrimental and undermine resident autonomy and nutritional status.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 14%
Unspecified 6 12%
Student > Master 6 12%
Other 6 12%
Other 11 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 29%
Unspecified 7 14%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Other 9 18%

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 22 September 2015.
All research outputs
#2,587,008
of 6,388,713 outputs
Outputs from Nutrients
#959
of 1,600 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,846
of 185,498 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrients
#61
of 115 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,388,713 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 59th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,600 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 185,498 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 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 115 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.