↓ Skip to main content

Technology for fostering intergenerational connectivity: scoping review protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
40 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
Technology for fostering intergenerational connectivity: scoping review protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13643-017-0652-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer Boger, Kathryn Mercer

Abstract

The simultaneous increase in geographically dispersed families and general decrease in engagement in local communities is resulting in fewer opportunities for youth and older adults interact in meaningful ways. Technology is becoming increasingly pervasive and flexible and providing new opportunities to foster intergenerational connection that can be implemented and evaluated across a multitude of populations and contexts. What research has been done in this area is spread across disciplines and what aspects of technologies could make them more effective is not well understood. The scoping review will be completed in five stages: (1) identifying the research question, (2) identifying relevant studies, (3) selecting studies, (4) charting the data, and (5) collating, summarizing, and reporting the results. Comprehensive descriptive data from each study will be presented along with an analysis of similarities and differences in research from different disciplines. This scoping review focuses on a search of the literature to gain an understanding of what technologies have been used specifically for fostering intergenerational connectivity and to establish what future directions for research could be. To the authors' knowledge, it is the first scoping review of its kind.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 18%
Researcher 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Other 8 20%
Unknown 15 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 8 20%
Social Sciences 5 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 10%
Psychology 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 18 45%
Attention Score in Context

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 14 December 2017.
All research outputs
#20,001,284
of 25,480,126 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,907
of 2,236 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#321,501
of 446,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#50
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,480,126 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,236 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 446,209 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.