↓ Skip to main content

Informal care relationships and residential aged care recommendations: evidence from administrative data

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Geriatrics, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

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
Informal care relationships and residential aged care recommendations: evidence from administrative data
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12877-017-0656-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeromey B. Temple, Marijan Jukic, Briony Dow

Abstract

The Australian government recognises the importance of informal care to enable ageing in place. Yet, few multivariable studies have examined aspects of informal care that alter the probability of entry to residential care in Australia. Existing Australian and international studies show differing effects of informal care on entry to residential care. We utilise unique administrative data on aged care assessments collected from 2010 to 2013, consisting of 280,000 persons aged 65 and over. Logistic regression models were fitted to measure the propensity to be recommended care in a residential care setting, disaggregated by characteristics of informal care provision. Providing some explanation for the divergent findings in the literature, we show that close familial carer relationships (partner or child) and coresidence are associated with recommendations to live in the community. Weaker non-coresidential friend or neighbour carer relationships are associated with recommendations to live in residential care for women, as are non-coresidential other relatives (not a child, partner or in-law) for both males and females. Non-coresident carers who are in-laws (for females) or parents have no impact on assessor recommendations. Despite these significant differences, health conditions and assistance needs play a strong role in assessor recommendations about entry to residential care. Co-resident care clearly plays an important protective role in residential care admission. Government policy should consider the need for differential supports for co-resident carers as part of future aged care reform.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 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 > Ph. D. Student 9 23%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Student > Master 4 10%
Researcher 3 8%
Professor 3 8%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 11 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 6 15%
Social Sciences 6 15%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 8%
Psychology 3 8%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 15 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 2018.
All research outputs
#14,370,803
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#2,174
of 3,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,948
of 440,404 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#45
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,235 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 440,404 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.