↓ Skip to main content

Falls prevention advice and visual feedback to those at risk of falling: study protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
286 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
Falls prevention advice and visual feedback to those at risk of falling: study protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial
Published in
Trials, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-14-79
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephen Uzor, Lynne Baillie, Dawn A Skelton, Phillip J Rowe

Abstract

Studies have shown that functional strength and balance exercises can reduce the risk of falling in older people if they are done on a regular basis. However, the repetitive nature of these exercises; combined with the inherent lack of feedback of progress may discourage seniors from exercising in the home, thereby rendering such an intervention ineffective. This study hypothesizes that the use of visual feedback and multimodal games will be more effective in encouraging adherence to home rehabilitation than standard care; thereby promoting independence and improving the quality of life in older adults at risk of falling.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 286 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Iceland 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 280 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 59 21%
Student > Bachelor 44 15%
Researcher 39 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 20 7%
Other 40 14%
Unknown 51 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 60 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 43 15%
Sports and Recreations 25 9%
Engineering 18 6%
Psychology 17 6%
Other 67 23%
Unknown 56 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 05 June 2013.
All research outputs
#7,241,821
of 12,547,386 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#1,943
of 3,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,128
of 144,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#13
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,547,386 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,090 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 144,866 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.