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 |
CHERISH (collaboration for hospitalised elders reducing the impact of stays in hospital): protocol for a multi-site improvement program to reduce geriatric syndromes in older inpatients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Geriatrics, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12877-016-0399-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alison M. Mudge, Merrilyn D. Banks, Adrian G. Barnett, Irene Blackberry, Nicholas Graves, Theresa Green, Gillian Harvey, Ruth E. Hubbard, Sharon K. Inouye, Sue Kurrle, Kwang Lim, Prue McRae, Nancye M. Peel, Jessica Suna, Adrienne M. Young |
| Abstract |
Older inpatients are at risk of hospital-associated geriatric syndromes including delirium, functional decline, incontinence, falls and pressure injuries. These contribute to longer hospital stays, loss of independence, and death. Effective interventions to reduce geriatric syndromes remain poorly implemented due to their complexity, and require an organised approach to change care practices and systems. Eat Walk Engage is a complex multi-component intervention with structured implementation, which has shown reduced geriatric syndromes and length of stay in pilot studies at one hospital. This study will test effectiveness of implementing Eat Walk Engage using a multi-site cluster randomised trial to inform transferability of this intervention. A hybrid study design will evaluate the effectiveness and implementation strategy of Eat Walk Engage in a real-world setting. A multisite cluster randomised study will be conducted in 8 medical and surgical wards in 4 hospitals, with one ward in each site randomised to implement Eat Walk Engage (intervention) and one to continue usual care (control). Intervention wards will be supported to develop and implement locally tailored strategies to enhance early mobility, nutrition, and meaningful activities. Resources will include a trained, mentored facilitator, audit support, a trained healthcare assistant, and support by an expert facilitator team using the i-PARIHS implementation framework. Patient outcomes and process measures before and after intervention will be compared between intervention and control wards. Primary outcomes are any hospital-associated geriatric syndrome (delirium, functional decline, falls, pressure injuries, new incontinence) and length of stay. Secondary outcomes include discharge destination; 30-day mortality, function and quality of life; 6 month readmissions; and cost-effectiveness. Process measures including patient interviews, activity mapping and mealtime audits will inform interventions in each site and measure improvement progress. Factors influencing the trajectory of implementation success will be monitored on implementation wards. Using a hybrid design and guided by an explicit implementation framework, the CHERISH study will establish the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and transferability of a successful pilot program for improving care of older inpatients, and identify features that support successful implementation. ACTRN12615000879561 registered prospectively 21/8/2015. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 14% |
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| Ireland | 1 | 14% |
| Australia | 1 | 14% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 3 | 43% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 29% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 29% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 390 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 388 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 74 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 42 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 37 | 9% |
| Researcher | 34 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 21 | 5% |
| Other | 71 | 18% |
| Unknown | 111 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 108 | 28% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 75 | 19% |
| Sports and Recreations | 17 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 14 | 4% |
| Psychology | 11 | 3% |
| Other | 49 | 13% |
| Unknown | 116 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 18 October 2021.
All research outputs
#7,157,864
of 23,867,274 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#1,729
of 3,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,782
of 426,933 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#41
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,867,274 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,287 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 426,933 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.