↓ Skip to main content

What should we know about dementia in the 21st Century? A Delphi consensus study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Geriatrics, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
150 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 should we know about dementia in the 21st Century? A Delphi consensus study
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12877-015-0008-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael J Annear, Christine Toye, Frances McInerney, Claire Eccleston, Bruce Tranter, Kate-Ellen Elliott, Andrew Robinson

Abstract

BackgroundEscalating numbers of people are experiencing dementia in many countries. With increasing consumer needs, there is anticipated growth in the numbers of people providing diagnostic evaluations, treatments, and care. Ensuring a consistent and contemporary understanding of dementia across all of these groups has become a critical issue. This study aimed to reach consensus among dementia experts from English speaking countries regarding essential and contemporary knowledge about dementia.MethodsAn online Delphi study was conducted to examine expert opinion concerning dementia knowledge with three rounds of data collection. A sample of dementia experts was selected by a panel of Australian experts, including a geriatrician and three professors of aged care. Purposive selection was initially undertaken with the sample expanded through snowballing. Dementia experts (N¿=¿19) included geriatricians, psychologists, psychiatrists, neuroscientists, dementia advocates, and nurse academics from the United Kingdom, United States, and Australia. In the first round, these participants provided open-ended responses to questions determining what comprised essential knowledge about dementia. In the second round, responses were summarised into 66 discrete statements that participants rated on the basis of importance. In the third round, a rank-ordered list of the 66 statements and a group median were provided and participants rated the statements again. The degree of consensus regarding importance ratings was determined by assessing median, interquartile range, and proportion of experts scoring above predetermined thresholds. Correlation scores were calculated for each statement after the final round to identify changes in statement scores.ResultsThe Delphi experts identified 36 statements about dementia that they considered essential to understanding the condition. Statements about care for a person experiencing dementia and their care giver represented the largest response category. Other statements, for which full or very high consensus was reached, related to dementia characteristics, symptoms and progression, diagnosis and assessment, and treatment and prevention.ConclusionsThese results summarise knowledge of dementia that is considered essential across expert representatives of key stakeholder groups from three countries. This information has implications for the delivery of care to people with the condition and the development of dementia education programs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 150 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 148 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 13%
Student > Bachelor 18 12%
Researcher 15 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 9%
Other 31 21%
Unknown 33 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 17%
Psychology 12 8%
Social Sciences 10 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 5%
Other 19 13%
Unknown 41 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 22 December 2019.
All research outputs
#6,782,242
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#1,692
of 3,241 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,209
of 357,068 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#10
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,241 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 357,068 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 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 62% of its contemporaries.