↓ Skip to main content

Derivation and validation of the Personal Support Algorithm: an evidence-based framework to inform allocation of personal support services in home and community care

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 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
Derivation and validation of the Personal Support Algorithm: an evidence-based framework to inform allocation of personal support services in home and community care
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2737-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chi-Ling Joanna Sinn, Aaron Jones, Janet Legge McMullan, Nancy Ackerman, Nancy Curtin-Telegdi, Leslie Eckel, John P. Hirdes

Abstract

Personal support services enable many individuals to stay in their homes, but there are no standard ways to classify need for functional support in home and community care settings. The goal of this project was to develop an evidence-based clinical tool to inform service planning while allowing for flexibility in care coordinator judgment in response to patient and family circumstances. The sample included 128,169 Ontario home care patients assessed in 2013 and 25,800 Ontario community support clients assessed between 2014 and 2016. Independent variables were drawn from the Resident Assessment Instrument-Home Care and interRAI Community Health Assessment that are standardised, comprehensive, and fully compatible clinical assessments. Clinical expertise and regression analyses identified candidate variables that were entered into decision tree models. The primary dependent variable was the weekly hours of personal support calculated based on the record of billed services. The Personal Support Algorithm classified need for personal support into six groups with a 32-fold difference in average billed hours of personal support services between the highest and lowest group. The algorithm explained 30.8% of the variability in billed personal support services. Care coordinators and managers reported that the guidelines based on the algorithm classification were consistent with their clinical judgment and current practice. The Personal Support Algorithm provides a structured yet flexible decision-support framework that may facilitate a more transparent and equitable approach to the allocation of personal support services.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Student > Master 3 7%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 18 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 9 20%
Social Sciences 5 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 11%
Computer Science 2 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 19 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 17 August 2020.
All research outputs
#4,887,978
of 24,490,209 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,300
of 8,275 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,337
of 447,668 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#36
of 113 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,490,209 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,275 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 447,668 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 113 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 69% of its contemporaries.