↓ Skip to main content

Dignity in people with frontotemporal dementia and similar disorders — a qualitative study of the perspective of family caregivers

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
143 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
Dignity in people with frontotemporal dementia and similar disorders — a qualitative study of the perspective of family caregivers
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2378-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mette Sagbakken, Dagfinn Nåden, Ingun Ulstein, Kari Kvaal, Birgitta Langhammer, May-Karin Rognstad

Abstract

Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) constitutes on average 10-15% of dementia in younger persons (≤65 years old), but can also affect older people. These patients demonstrate a decline in social conduct, and/or language aphasias, apathy, and loss of insight that is gradual and progressive. Preservation of dignity seems to be highly relevant both before and after admission to different types of institutionalized care, but the research is scant. From the perspective of close relatives, this study aims to develop knowledge related to dignified or undignified care of patients with FTD and similar conditions. A qualitative, descriptive, and explorative design were employed to address the aims of this study. We interviewed nine relatives of people with FTD and similar conditions living in nursing homes, and two relatives of people living at home but attending day center 5 days a week. Relatives described the transition from being a close relative to someone who had little influence or knowledge of what constituted the care and the daily life of their loved ones. According to relatives' descriptions, patients are deprived of dignity in various ways: through limited interaction with peers and close relatives, limited confirmation of identity through staff who know them well, lack of possibilities for making autonomous decisions or entertaining meaningful roles or activities. Examples provided from the day care centres show how dignity is maintained through identity-strengthening activities conducted in different places, under various kinds of supervision and care, and together with people representing different roles and functions. Maintaining a link with the world outside the institution, through closer cooperation between the institution and family members, and/or by the use of day care centres, seems to facilitate prevention of many of the factors that may threaten dignified care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 143 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 18%
Student > Master 15 10%
Student > Bachelor 12 8%
Researcher 11 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 4%
Other 21 15%
Unknown 52 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 31 22%
Psychology 16 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 11%
Social Sciences 11 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Other 11 8%
Unknown 54 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 26 July 2017.
All research outputs
#2,945,531
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,296
of 7,847 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,281
of 317,456 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#36
of 136 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,847 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 317,456 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 136 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.