↓ Skip to main content

Making mobility-related disability better: a complex response to a complex problem

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 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
Making mobility-related disability better: a complex response to a complex problem
Published in
BMC Medicine, October 2012
DOI 10.1186/1741-7015-10-121
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kenneth Rockwood

Abstract

Mobility disability in older adults can arise from single system problems, such as discrete musculoskeletal injury. In frail older adults, however, mobility disability is part of a complex web of problems. The approach to their rehabilitation must take that complexity into account, as is reported by Fairhall et al. First, their overall health state must be assessed, which is achieved by a comprehensive geriatric assessment. The assessment can show how a particular patient came to be disabled, so that an individualized care plan can be worked out. Whether this approach works in general can be evaluated by looking at group differences in mean mobility test scores. Knowing whether it has worked in the individual patient requires an individualized measure. This is because not every patient starts from the same point, and not every patient achieves success by aiming for the same goal. For one patient, walking unassisted for three metres would be a triumph; for another it would be a tragedy. Unless we understand the complexity of the needs of frail older adults, we will neither be able to treat them effectively nor evaluate our efforts sensibly.Please see related article http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/10/120.

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 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 19%
Researcher 3 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 4 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 19%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 6%
Psychology 1 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 25%
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 09 August 2014.
All research outputs
#13,294,883
of 22,681,577 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,783
of 3,398 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,394
of 174,094 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#41
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,681,577 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,398 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.6. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 174,094 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.