↓ Skip to main content

Proactive and integrated primary care for frail older people: design and methodological challenges of the Utrecht primary care PROactive frailty intervention trial (U-PROFIT)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Geriatrics, April 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
221 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
Proactive and integrated primary care for frail older people: design and methodological challenges of the Utrecht primary care PROactive frailty intervention trial (U-PROFIT)
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, April 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2318-12-16
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nienke Bleijenberg, Irene Drubbel, Valerie H ten Dam, Mattijs E Numans, Marieke J Schuurmans, Niek J de Wit

Abstract

Currently, primary care for frail older people is reactive, time consuming and does not meet patients' needs. A transition is needed towards proactive and integrated care, so that daily functioning and a good quality of life can be preserved. To work towards these goals, two interventions were developed to enhance the care of frail older patients in general practice: a screening and monitoring intervention using routine healthcare data (U-PRIM) and a nurse-led multidisciplinary intervention program (U-CARE). The U-PROFIT trial was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of these interventions. The aim of this paper is to describe the U-PROFIT trial design and to discuss methodological issues and challenges.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 1%
United States 2 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 215 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 38 17%
Student > Master 34 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 13%
Student > Bachelor 21 10%
Other 14 6%
Other 46 21%
Unknown 40 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 73 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 50 23%
Social Sciences 13 6%
Psychology 6 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Other 24 11%
Unknown 50 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 03 June 2015.
All research outputs
#6,252,911
of 22,691,736 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#1,536
of 3,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,333
of 163,343 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#3
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,691,736 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,140 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 163,343 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.