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 |
Impact of home care versus alternative locations of care on elder health outcomes: an overview of systematic reviews
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Geriatrics, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12877-016-0395-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Laura Boland, France Légaré, Maria Margarita Becerra Perez, Matthew Menear, Mirjam Marjolein Garvelink, Daniel I. McIsaac, Geneviève Painchaud Guérard, Julie Emond, Nathalie Brière, Dawn Stacey |
| Abstract |
Many elders struggle with the decision to remain at home or to move to an alternative location of care. A person's location of care can influence health and wellbeing. Healthcare organizations and policy makers are increasingly challenged to better support elders' dwelling and health care needs. A summary of the evidence that examines home care compared to other care locations can inform decision making. We surveyed and summarized the evidence evaluating the impact of home care versus alternative locations of care on elder health outcomes. We conducted an overview of systematic reviews. Data sources included MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and CINAHL. Eligible reviews included adults 65+ years, elder home care, alternative care locations, and elder health outcomes. Two independent reviewers screened citations. We extracted data and appraised review quality using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklist. Results were synthesized narratively. The search yielded 2575 citations, of which 19 systematic reviews were eligible. Three hundred and forty studies with 271,660 participants were synthesized across the systematic reviews. The categories of comparisons included: home with support versus independent living at home (n = 11 reviews), home care versus institutional care (n = 3 reviews), and rehabilitation at home versus conventional rehabilitation services (n = 7 reviews). Two reviews had data relevant to two categories. Most reviews favoured home with support to independent living at home. Findings comparing home care to institutional care were mixed. Most reviews found no differences in health outcomes between rehabilitation at home versus conventional rehabilitation services. Systematic review quality was moderate, with a median AMSTAR score of 6 (range 4 - 10 out of 11). The evidence on the impact of home care compared to alternative care locations on elder health outcomes is heterogeneous. Our findings support positive health impacts of home support interventions for community dwelling elders compared to independent living at home. There is insufficient evidence to determine the impact of alternative care locations on elders' health. Additional research targeting housing and care options for the elderly is needed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 3 | 23% |
| France | 3 | 23% |
| United States | 1 | 8% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 8% |
| Spain | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 4 | 31% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 69% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 31% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 226 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 226 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 32 | 14% |
| Researcher | 26 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 5% |
| Other | 42 | 19% |
| Unknown | 84 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 28 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 20 | 9% |
| Psychology | 10 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 9 | 4% |
| Other | 32 | 14% |
| Unknown | 94 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 56. 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 20 April 2021.
All research outputs
#679,449
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#71
of 3,202 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,901
of 424,831 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#3
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,202 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 424,831 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.