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 |
Cost-effectiveness of a nurse-led intervention to optimise implementation of guideline-concordant continence care: Study protocol of the COCON study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Nursing, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12912-017-0204-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Aaltje P. D. Jansen, Maaike E. Muntinga, Judith E. Bosmans, Bary Berghmans, Janny Dekker, Jacqueline Hugtenburgh, Giel Nijpels, Paul van Houten, Miranda G. H. Laurant, Huub C. H. van der Vaart |
| Abstract |
Guidelines on urinary incontinence recommend that absorbent products are only used as a coping strategy pending definitive treatment, as an adjunct to ongoing therapy, or for long-term management after all treatment options have been explored. However, these criteria are rarely met and a significant share of long-term product users could still benefit from therapeutic interventions recommended in guidelines for urinary incontinence. Better implementation of these guidelines can potentially result in both health benefits for women and long-term cost savings for society. The aim of the COCON study is to evaluate the (cost-)effectiveness of a nurse-led intervention to optimise implementation of guideline-concordant continence care in comparison with usual care for urinary incontinent women aged 55 years and over who use absorbent products. This randomised clinical trial compares usual care with a nurse-led intervention to optimise implementation of guideline-concordant continence care. Women (anticipated N = 160) are recruited in 12 community pharmacies in three Dutch regions, and are eligible for trial entry when they are 55 years and over, community-dwelling and long-term users of absorbent products (≥4 months) reimbursed by health insurance. Measurements are administered at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months. Primary outcome is severity of urinary incontinence (ICIQ-UI SF); other outcomes include health related quality of life (EQ-5D-5 L), use of absorbent products (in accordance with the recommended criteria in guidelines) (yes/no), and societal costs. Mixed model analysis will be performed to compare (the course) of outcomes between groups. The economic evaluation will be performed from a societal perspective. The implementation process is investigated using the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases (TICD) framework. Results will add to current knowledge of the (cost-)effectiveness of nurse-led primary healthcare to improve guideline-concordant care for older women with urinary incontinence. In addition, the results will provide more insight into care needs and health service utilization of this group of women, as well as into use of absorbent products in accordance with the recommended criteria in guidelines. Finally, results will increase our understanding of the intervention's uptake and could provide useful insights for future dissemination and sustenance. Dutch Trial Register NTR4396, registered 13-January-2014. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 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 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 95 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 6% |
| Lecturer | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 20 | 21% |
| Unknown | 30 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 31 | 33% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 15% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 10 | 11% |
| Unknown | 30 | 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 09 March 2017.
All research outputs
#15,448,846
of 22,958,253 outputs
Outputs from BMC Nursing
#460
of 756 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,701
of 311,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Nursing
#8
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,958,253 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 756 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 311,177 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.