↓ Skip to main content

Identifying the content of home-based health behaviour change interventions for frail older people: a systematic review protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Identifying the content of home-based health behaviour change interventions for frail older people: a systematic review protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, January 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13643-015-0138-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ana Jovicic, Benjamin Gardner, Celia Belk, Kalpa Kharicha, Steve Iliffe, Jill Manthorpe, Claire Goodman, Vari Drennan, Kate Walters

Abstract

Meeting the needs of the growing number of older people is a challenge for health and social care services. Home-based interventions aiming to modify health-related behaviours of frail older people have the potential to improve functioning and well-being. Previous reviews have focused on whether such interventions are effective, rather than what might make them effective. Recent advances in behavioural science make possible the identification of potential 'active ingredients' of effective interventions, such as component behaviour change techniques (BCTs), and intended intervention functions (IFs; e.g. to educate, to impart skills). This paper reports a protocol for a systematic review that seeks to (a) identify health behaviour change interventions for older frail people, (b) describe the content of these interventions, and (c) explore links between intervention content and effectiveness. The protocol is reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 guidelines. Studies will be identified through a systematic search of 15 electronic databases, supplemented by citation tracking. Studies will be retained for review where they report randomised controlled trials focusing on home-based health promotion delivered by a health professional for frail older people in community settings, written in English, and either published from 1980 onwards, or, for registered trials only, unpublished but completed with results obtainable from authors. Interventions will be coded for their content (BCTs, IFs) and for evidence of effectiveness (outcome data relating to behavioural and health outcomes). Analyses will describe characteristics of all interventions. Interventions for which effectiveness data are available will be categorised into those showing evidence of effectiveness versus those showing no such evidence. The potential for each intervention characteristic to contribute to change in behaviour or health outcomes will be estimated by calculating the percentage of all interventions featuring those characteristics that have shown effectiveness. Results will reveal the strategies that have been drawn on within home-based interventions to modify the health behaviours of frail older people, and highlight those more associated with positive changes in behaviour and health. Findings from this review will provide a useful basis for understanding, developing, and implementing behaviour change interventions in this field. PROSPERO CRD42014010370.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 50 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 22%
Student > Master 10 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Professor 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 7 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 24%
Psychology 10 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 12%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Sports and Recreations 3 6%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 7 14%

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 10 December 2015.
All research outputs
#1,015,232
of 6,737,133 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#195
of 537 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,710
of 236,588 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#15
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,737,133 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 537 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 236,588 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 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 67% of its contemporaries.