↓ Skip to main content

What is the effectiveness of the support worker role for people with dementia and their carers? A systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
243 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 effectiveness of the support worker role for people with dementia and their carers? A systematic review
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1531-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dianne Goeman, Emma Renehan, Susan Koch

Abstract

Dementia is progressive in nature and the associated functional decline inevitably leads to increasing dependence on others in areas of daily living. Models of support have been developed and implemented to assist with adjusting to living with memory loss and functional decline; to navigate the health and aged care system; and to access services. We undertook a systematic review of international literature on key worker type support roles to identify essential components and ascertain how the role can be best utilised to assist community-dwelling people with dementia and their carers. This review of support roles is the first to our knowledge to include both quantitative and qualitative studies and all models of support. A systematic review of studies written in English and published between January 2003 and December 2014. Data sources were Medline, PsychInfo and CINAHL, internet, expert consultation and reference lists of included studies. After screening articles to ensure that they reported on a key worker type support role, involved carers and or people with dementia living at home and removing duplicates, eligible papers were appraised and evaluated. Thirty six studies were eligible for inclusion in the review. Eligible studies were divided into type of support roles and study type. The heterogeneity of included studies and high risk of bias made a meta-analysis inappropriate and it was therefore difficult to draw overall conclusions. However, essential components shared across support worker models that demonstrated a positive impact on carer burden and improved quality of life included: long term intervention, face to face contact, individualised education and support based on needs, multi-disciplinary teams, collaborative input, health/clinical background of support workers, ongoing follow up and inter professional and inter-sectoral collaborations. There was a lack of studies assessing cost-effectiveness. Studies that include a high quality evaluation of holistic, tailored models of support that identify which components of support produce the most valuable outcomes to assist people with dementia and their carers and families to continue to live meaningful lives are needed. There is also a need for a cost effectiveness evaluation of support worker roles. PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews: PROSPERO 2014 CRD42014013992 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 243 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 242 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 32 13%
Student > Master 30 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 12%
Student > Bachelor 22 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 7%
Other 36 15%
Unknown 79 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 39 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 34 14%
Psychology 26 11%
Social Sciences 23 9%
Computer Science 5 2%
Other 27 11%
Unknown 89 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 26 January 2017.
All research outputs
#6,979,459
of 22,881,154 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,418
of 7,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,230
of 363,105 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#88
of 202 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,154 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,651 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 363,105 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 202 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 54% of its contemporaries.