↓ Skip to main content

What is the impact of sensory practices on the quality of life of long-term care residents? A mixed-methods systematic review protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 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
What is the impact of sensory practices on the quality of life of long-term care residents? A mixed-methods systematic review protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13643-018-0783-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chantal Backman, Michelle Crick, Danielle Cho-Young, Megan Scharf, Beverley Shea

Abstract

With age, the acuity of the five senses (i.e., hearing, sight, taste, smell, touch) is reduced. These types of sensory changes can affect day-to-day activities, making it more difficult for individuals to communicate and to interact with the world around them. The five senses allow us to receive information from the environment in the form of sound, light, smell, taste, and touch. As an older person's senses decline, they need more stimulation to be aware of these sensations. In long-term care settings, appropriate sensory practices are needed to address the diminishing senses of older adults. The objective of this mixed-methods systematic review is to examine the relationship between the sensory practices and the quality of life of residents living in long-term care settings and to develop an aggregated synthesis of mixed-methods studies to derive recommendations for policy, practice, and research. We will conduct a mixed-methods systematic review in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook. A search strategy has been developed with an expert health sciences librarian and peer reviewed using Peer Review for Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS). Seven databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed (non-MEDLINE-Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase (Ovid), Ageline, PsycINFO (Ovid), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) will be searched for studies that meet the inclusion criteria. Two reviewers will independently screen the results of the literature search using a two-step process. Eligible studies will undergo a quality assessment and data extraction. Disagreements will be resolved through consultation with a third reviewer. We will assess the quality of individual studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) will be used to summarize the strength of the quantitative evidence, and the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (CERQual) tool to assess confidence in the qualitative syntheses. This systematic review will summarize evidence-based knowledge for sensory practices, identify gaps in the literature, and inform an audit program for assessing the presence of sensory practices in the long-term care setting. The results will be relevant to policy makers, decision-makers, clinicians, and residents/families in long-term care settings. PROSPERO registration # CRD42017032330 .

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 84 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 14%
Student > Bachelor 10 12%
Researcher 7 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 33 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 15 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 8%
Psychology 6 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 6%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Other 14 17%
Unknown 33 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 07 August 2018.
All research outputs
#5,831,917
of 23,099,576 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#996
of 2,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,659
of 330,419 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#41
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,099,576 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,010 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 330,419 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.