↓ Skip to main content

Feasibility and efficacy of a multi-factorial intervention to prevent falls in older adults with cognitive impairment living in residential care (ProF-Cog). A feasibility and pilot cluster randomised…

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
303 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
Feasibility and efficacy of a multi-factorial intervention to prevent falls in older adults with cognitive impairment living in residential care (ProF-Cog). A feasibility and pilot cluster randomised controlled trial
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12877-017-0504-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julie Whitney, Stephen H.D. Jackson, Finbarr C. Martin

Abstract

Falls are common in people with dementia living in residential care. The ProF-Cog intervention was developed to address fall risk factors specific to this population. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety, acceptability, and feasibility of the intervention and provide an estimate of its efficacy. This was a cluster randomised controlled pilot study undertaken in care homes in London, UK. All permanent residents living in participating homes who were not terminally ill were invited to participate. The intervention included an assessment of falls risk factors followed by a tailored intervention which could include dementia care mapping, comprehensive geriatric assessment, occupational therapy input and twice-weekly exercise for 6 months as required to target identified risk factors. The control group received usual care without a falls risk assessment. Standing balance was the primary outcome. This and other outcome measures were collected at baseline and after 6 months. Falls were recorded for this period using incident reports. Changes were analysed using multi-level modelling. Adherence to the interventions, adverse events and trial feasibility were recorded. Nine care homes enrolled in the study with a total 191 participants (51% of those eligible); five homes allocated to the intervention with 103 participants, and four homes to the usual care control group with 88 participants. The intervention was safe with only one reported fall whilst undertaking exercise. Adherence to agreed recommendations on activity and the environment was modest (21 and 45% respectively) and to exercise was poor (41%). Balance scores (score range 0-49) analysed on 100 participants decreased by a mean of 3.9 in the control and 5.1 in the intervention groups, a non-significant difference (p = 0.9). In other measures, both groups declined equally and there was no difference in falls rates (IRR = 1.59 95%, CI 0.67-3.76). The intervention was safe but not clinically effective. Poor adherence suggests it was not an acceptable or feasible intervention. ISRCTN00695885 . Registered 26th March 2013.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 303 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 302 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 49 16%
Student > Master 36 12%
Researcher 24 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 5%
Other 46 15%
Unknown 111 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 79 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 43 14%
Sports and Recreations 15 5%
Psychology 11 4%
Social Sciences 7 2%
Other 32 11%
Unknown 116 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 27 April 2021.
All research outputs
#7,544,865
of 23,018,998 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#1,782
of 3,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,582
of 316,130 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#33
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,018,998 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 316,130 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.