↓ Skip to main content

Health promotion interventions for community-dwelling older people with mild or pre-frailty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Geriatrics, July 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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
16 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
100 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
329 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Health promotion interventions for community-dwelling older people with mild or pre-frailty: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12877-017-0547-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachael Frost, Celia Belk, Ana Jovicic, Federico Ricciardi, Kalpa Kharicha, Benjamin Gardner, Steve Iliffe, Claire Goodman, Jill Manthorpe, Vari M Drennan, Kate Walters

Abstract

Mild or pre-frailty is common and associated with increased risks of hospitalisation, functional decline, moves to long-term care, and death. Little is known about the effectiveness of health promotion in reducing these risks. This systematic review aimed to synthesise randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating home and community-based health promotion interventions for older people with mild/pre-frailty. We searched 20 bibliographic databases and 3 trials registers (January 1990 - May 2016) using mild/pre-frailty and associated terms. We included randomised controlled and crossover trials of health promotion interventions for community-dwelling older people (65+ years) with mild/pre-frailty and excluded studies focussing on populations in hospital, long term care facilities or with a specific condition. Risk of bias was assessed by two reviewers using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We pooled study results using standardised mean differences (SMD) where possible and used narrative synthesis where insufficient outcome data were available. We included 10 articles reporting on seven trials (total n = 506 participants) and included five trials in a meta-analysis. Studies were predominantly small, of limited quality and six studies tested group exercise alone. One study additionally investigated a nutrition and exercise intervention and one evaluated telemonitoring. Interventions of exercise in groups showed mixed effects on functioning (no effects on self-reported functioning SMD 0.19 (95% CI -0.57 to 0.95) n = 3 studies; positive effects on performance-based functioning SMD 0.37 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.68) n = 3 studies). No studies assessed moves to long-term care or hospitalisations. Currently the evidence base is of insufficient size, quality and breadth to recommend specific health promotion interventions for older people with mild or pre- frailty. High quality studies of rigorously developed interventions are needed. CRD42014010370 (Review 2).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 329 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 329 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 46 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 39 12%
Student > Bachelor 30 9%
Researcher 29 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 5%
Other 57 17%
Unknown 112 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 64 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 64 19%
Sports and Recreations 15 5%
Social Sciences 15 5%
Psychology 10 3%
Other 36 11%
Unknown 125 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 15 August 2022.
All research outputs
#1,561,593
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#287
of 3,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,952
of 328,790 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#12
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,721 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 328,790 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.