↓ Skip to main content

People with dementia in nursing home research: a methodological review of the definition and identification of the study population

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Geriatrics, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
109 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
People with dementia in nursing home research: a methodological review of the definition and identification of the study population
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12877-016-0249-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rebecca Palm, Saskia Jünger, Sven Reuther, Christian G. G. Schwab, Martin N. Dichter, Bernhard Holle, Margareta Halek

Abstract

There are various definitions and diagnostic criteria for dementia, leading to discrepancies in case ascertainment in both clinical practice and research. We reviewed the different definitions, approaches and measurements used to operationalize dementia in health care studies in German nursing homes with the aim of discussing the implications of different approaches. We conducted a systematic search of the MEDLINE and CINAHL databases to identify pre-2016 studies conducted in German nursing homes that focused on residents with dementia or cognitive impairment. In- or exclusion of studies were consented by all authors; data extraction was independently carried out by 2 authors (RP, SJ). The studies' sampling methods were compared with respect to their inclusion criteria, assessment tools and methods used to identify the study population. We summarized case ascertainment methods from 64 studies. Study participants were identified based on a diagnosis that was evaluated during the study, or a recorded medical dementia diagnosis, or a recorded medical diagnosis either with additional cognitive screenings or using screening tests exclusively. The descriptions of the diagnostics that were applied to assess a diagnosis of dementia were not fully transparent in most of the studies with respect to either a clear reference definition of dementia or applied diagnostic criteria. If reported, various neuropsychological tests were used, mostly without a clear rationale for their selection. Pragmatic considerations often determine the sampling strategy; they also may explain the variances we detected in the different studies. Variations in sampling methods impede the comparability of study results. There is a need to consent case ascertainment strategies in dementia studies in health service research in nursing homes. These strategies should consider resource constraints and ethical issues that are related to the vulnerable population of nursing home residents. Additionally, reporting about dementia studies in nursing homes need to be improved. If a diagnosis cannot be evaluated based on either ICD or DSM criteria, the study population may not be reported as having dementia. If a diagnosis is evaluated based on ICD or DSM criteria within the study, there is a need for more transparency of the diagnostic process.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 108 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 15%
Student > Bachelor 13 12%
Student > Master 12 11%
Other 10 9%
Student > Postgraduate 8 7%
Other 25 23%
Unknown 25 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 30 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 18%
Psychology 7 6%
Neuroscience 5 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 18 17%
Unknown 27 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 18 April 2016.
All research outputs
#15,366,818
of 22,860,626 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#2,345
of 3,192 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,706
of 300,859 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#35
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,860,626 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,192 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 300,859 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.