↓ Skip to main content

Interventions for preventing, delaying the onset, or decreasing the burden of frailty: an overview of systematic reviews

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, 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
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 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
Interventions for preventing, delaying the onset, or decreasing the burden of frailty: an overview of systematic reviews
Published in
Systematic Reviews, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13643-015-0110-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael G. Wilson, François Béland, Dominic Julien, Lise Gauvin, G. Emmanuel Guindon, Denis Roy, Kaitryn Campbell, Donna G. Comeau, Heather Davidson, Parminder Raina, Deborah Sattler, Brenda Vrkljan

Abstract

Many systematic reviews have evaluated the effectiveness of interventions to prevent, delay, or decrease frailty symptoms, but no effort has been made to identify, map, and synthesize the findings from reviews across the full spectrum of interventions. Our objectives are to (1) synthesize findings from all existing systematic reviews evaluating interventions for preventing, delaying the onset, or decreasing the burden of frailty symptoms; (2) examine different conceptualizations of frailty that have been used in the development and implementation of interventions; and (3) inform policy by convening a stakeholder dialogue with Canadian health-system leaders. We will conduct an overview of systematic reviews to identify and synthesize all of the systematic reviews addressing interventions to preventing, delaying the onset, or decreasing the burden of frailty symptoms. To identify relevant systematic reviews, we will conduct database searches for published and grey literature as well as contact key experts and search reference lists of included reviews. Two reviewers will independently review all search results for inclusion and then conceptually map, extract key findings (including the conceptualization/definition of frailty used) and assess the methodological quality of all included reviews. We will then synthesize the findings by producing a 'gap map' (i.e. mapping reviews in a matrix according to the interventions and outcomes assessed), and narratively synthesize the key messages across reviews related to type of interventions. Following the completion of the synthesis, we will use the findings to develop an evidence brief that mobilizes the best available evidence about the problem related to preventing, delaying the onset, or decreasing the burden of frailty symptoms in older adults, policy and programmatic options to address the problem and implementation considerations. The evidence brief will then be used as the input into a stakeholder dialogue, which will engage 18-22 Canadian health-system leaders (including policymakers, health providers, researchers, and other stakeholders) in 'off-the-record' deliberations to inform future actions and policymaking. PROSPERO CRD42015022082.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 82 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 18%
Student > Master 13 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 23 27%
Unknown 10 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 18%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Environmental Science 3 4%
Other 15 18%
Unknown 12 14%
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 11 November 2015.
All research outputs
#8,534,976
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,434
of 2,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,261
of 286,225 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#23
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,229 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 286,225 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 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.