↓ Skip to main content

What is the impact on health and wellbeing of interventions that foster respect and social inclusion in community-residing older adults? A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
41 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
81 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
277 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
What is the impact on health and wellbeing of interventions that foster respect and social inclusion in community-residing older adults? A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies
Published in
Systematic Reviews, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13643-018-0680-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

S. Ronzi, L. Orton, D. Pope, N. K. Valtorta, N. G. Bruce

Abstract

Many interventions have been developed to promote respect and social inclusion among older people, but the evidence on their impacts on health has not been synthesised. This systematic review aims to appraise the state of the evidence across the quantitative and qualitative literature. Eligible studies published between 1990 and 2015 were identified by scanning seven bibliographic databases using a pre-piloted strategy, searching grey literature and contacting experts. Studies were included if they assessed the impact (quantitatively) and/or perceived impact (qualitatively) of an intervention promoting respect and social inclusion on the physical or mental health of community-residing people aged 60 years and older. Titles and abstracts were screened for eligibility by one reviewer. A second reviewer independently screened a 10% random sample. Full texts were screened for eligibility by one reviewer, with verification by another reviewer. Risk of bias was assessed using standardised tools. Findings were summarised using narrative synthesis, harvest plots and logic models to depict the potential pathways to health outcomes. Of the 27,354 records retrieved, 40 studies (23 quantitative, 6 qualitative, 11 mixed methods) were included. All studies were conducted in high and upper middle-income countries. Interventions involved mentoring, intergenerational and multi-activity programmes, dancing, music and singing, art and culture and information-communication technology. Most studies (n = 24) were at high or moderate risk of bias. Music and singing, intergenerational interventions, art and culture and multi-activity interventions were associated with an overall positive impact on health outcomes. This included depression (n = 3), wellbeing (n = 3), subjective health (n = 2), quality of life (n = 2), perceived stress and mental health (n = 2) and physical health (n = 2). Qualitative studies offered explanations for mediating factors (e.g. improved self-esteem) that may lead to improved health outcomes and contributed to the assessment of causation. Whilst this review suggests that some interventions may positively impact on the health outcomes of older people, and identified mediating factors to health outcomes, the evidence is based on studies with heterogeneous methodologies. Many of the interventions were delivered as projects to selected groups, raising important questions about the feasibility of wider implementation and the potential for population-wide benefits. PROSPERO registration number CRD42014010107.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 41 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 277 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 277 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 14%
Student > Bachelor 31 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 11%
Researcher 27 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 5%
Other 39 14%
Unknown 96 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 14%
Social Sciences 30 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 29 10%
Psychology 25 9%
Arts and Humanities 11 4%
Other 40 14%
Unknown 104 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 82. 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 10 October 2023.
All research outputs
#533,788
of 25,765,370 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#59
of 2,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,465
of 451,789 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#3
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,765,370 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,249 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 451,789 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.