↓ Skip to main content

Person-centredness in the care of older adults: a systematic review of questionnaire-based scales and their measurement properties

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Geriatrics, March 2016
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 (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
27 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 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
Person-centredness in the care of older adults: a systematic review of questionnaire-based scales and their measurement properties
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12877-016-0229-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mark Wilberforce, David Challis, Linda Davies, Michael P. Kelly, Chris Roberts, Nik Loynes

Abstract

Person-centredness is promoted as a central feature of the long-term care of older adults. Measures are needed to assist researchers, service planners and regulators in assessing this feature of quality. However, no systematic review exists to identify potential instruments and to provide a critical appraisal of their measurement properties. A systematic review of measures of person-centredness was undertaken. Inclusion criteria restricted references to multi-item instruments designed for older adult services, or otherwise with measurement properties tested in an older adult population. A two-stage critical appraisal was conducted. First, the methodological quality of included references was assessed using the COSMIN toolkit. Second, seven measurement properties were rated using widely-recognised thresholds of acceptability. These results were then synthesised to provide an overall appraisal of the strength of evidence for each measurement property for each instrument. Eleven measures tested in 22 references were included. Six instruments were designed principally for use in long-stay residential facilities, and four were for ambulatory hospital or clinic-based services. Only one measure was designed mainly for completion by users of home care services. No measure could be assessed across all seven measurement properties. Despite some instruments having promising measurement properties, this was consistently undermined by the poor methodological quality underpinning them. Testing of hypotheses to support construct validity was of particularly low quality, whilst measurement error was rarely assessed. Two measures were identified as having been the subject of the most rigorous testing. The review is unable to unequivocally recommend any measures of person-centredness for use in older adult care. Researchers are advised to improve methodological rigour when testing instruments. Efforts may be best focused on testing a narrower range of measurement properties but to a higher standard, and ensuring that translations to new languages are resisted until strong measurement properties are demonstrated in the original tongue. Limitations of the review include inevitable semantic and conceptual challenges involved in defining 'person-centredness'. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (ref: CRD42014005935).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 60 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 25%
Unspecified 10 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 16%
Student > Master 9 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 13 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 19 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 23%
Unspecified 11 18%
Social Sciences 6 10%
Psychology 5 8%
Other 6 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 13 January 2017.
All research outputs
#898,663
of 13,417,652 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#152
of 1,405 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,750
of 268,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,417,652 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,405 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 268,428 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them