↓ Skip to main content

General practitioners’ knowledge, attitudes and experiences of managing behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia: protocol of a mixed methods systematic review and meta-ethnography

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
27 X users

Readers on

mendeley
94 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
General practitioners’ knowledge, attitudes and experiences of managing behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia: protocol of a mixed methods systematic review and meta-ethnography
Published in
Systematic Reviews, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13643-018-0732-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aisling A. Jennings, Tony Foley, Kieran A. Walsh, Alice Coffey, John P. Browne, Colin P. Bradley

Abstract

In the context of rising dementia prevalence, the workload of general practitioners (GPs) in dementia care is set to increase. However, there are many aspects of dementia care that GPs find challenging. Behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) affect the majority of people with dementia and is an aspect of dementia care that GPs find particularly difficult to manage. The aim of this mixed methods systematic review is to undertake a synthesis of qualitative and quantitative studies on GPs' knowledge, attitudes and experiences of managing BPSD. Seven electronic bibliographic databases will be searched from inception to present. All qualitative or quantitative studies that explore the knowledge, attitude or experiences of GPs towards the management of BPSD in community and/or residential settings will be eligible for inclusion. A meta-ethnography will be conducted to synthesise included studies. Primary outcome measures will include GPs' experiences of managing BPSD, GPs' knowledge of BPSD and their attitude to different approaches to the management of BPSD, in particular their attitude to non-pharmacological approaches. All included papers will be independently assessed for methodological validity by two reviewers using the following tools: the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for qualitative research, the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) tool for intervention studies and the National Institute of Health (NIH) quality assessment tool for observational and analytical cross-sectional studies. As there is no agreed quality assessment tool for descriptive cross-sectional studies, an original tool will be developed. Two independent reviewers will apply the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (CERQual) tool to the review findings. The results will be reported in line with the Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research (ENTREQ) statement. This study will be the first systematic review that synthesises the existing literature of GPs' knowledge, attitudes and experiences of managing BPSD in community and residential care. This review will improve our understanding of GPs' perspectives on the management of BPSD, and the results will be used to inform the development of an intervention to improve the management of BPSD in general practice. PROSPERO CRD42017054916 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 94 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Researcher 6 6%
Other 16 17%
Unknown 36 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 18 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Psychology 4 4%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 37 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 02 August 2018.
All research outputs
#1,659,563
of 25,205,864 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#256
of 2,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,788
of 332,744 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#9
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,205,864 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,207 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 well, scoring higher than 88% 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 332,744 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.