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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Disability, support and long-term social care of an elderly Spanish population, 2008-2009: an epidemiologic analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal for Equity in Health, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12939-016-0498-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
J. Almazán-Isla, M. Comín-Comín, E. Alcalde-Cabero, C. Ruiz, E. Franco, R. Magallón, J. Damián, J. de Pedro-Cuesta, L. A. Larrosa-Montañes, on behalf of the DISCAP-ARAGON Research Group |
| Abstract |
Though poorly known, relationships between disability, need of help (dependency) and use of social services are crucial aspects of public health. The objective of this study was to describe the links between disability, officially assessed dependency, and social service use by an industrial population, and identify areas of inequity. We took advantage of a door-to-door survey conducted in the Cinco Villas district, Spain, in 2008-2009, which provided data on disability, morbidity, and service use among 1216 residents aged ≥50 years, and officially assessed dependency under the 2006 Dependency Act (OAD). Using logistic regression, we combined data collected at homes/residences on 625 disability screened-positive participants, and administrative information on degree of OAD and benefits at date of visit. Based on 163 disabled persons, the prevalence of residential/community-care users was 13.4% overall, with 6.0% being market-provided, 2.5% supported by the 2006 Act, and 4.9% supported by other public funds. Of 111 OAD applicants, 30 had been assigned an OAD degree; in 29 cases this was the highest OAD degree, with 12 receiving direct support for residential care and 17 receiving home care. Compared to unassessed dependency, the highest OAD degree was linked to residential care (OR and 95% CI) 12.13 (3.86-38.16), declared non-professional care 10.99 (1.28-94.53), and publicly-funded, non-professional care 26.30 (3.36-205.88). In contrast, 43 persons, 58% of the severely/extremely disabled, community-dwelling sample population, 81% of whom were homebound, including 10 persons with OAD but no implemented service plan, made no use of any service, and of these, 40% lacked a non-professional carer. Formal service use in the Cinco Villas district attained ratios observed for established welfare systems but the publicly-funded proportion was lower. The 2006 Act had a modest, albeit significant, impact on support for non-professional carers and residential care, coexisting with a high prevalence of non-use of social services by severely disabled persons. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 76 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 13% |
| Researcher | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 11 | 14% |
| Unknown | 25 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 17% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 11% |
| Psychology | 5 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 15 | 20% |
| Unknown | 24 | 32% |
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 10 January 2017.
All research outputs
#20,382,391
of 22,931,367 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#1,862
of 1,915 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#356,363
of 421,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#32
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,931,367 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,915 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 421,326 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.