↓ Skip to main content

Expert opinion on the management of pain in hospitalised older patients with cognitive impairment: a mixed methods analysis of a national survey

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Geriatrics, April 2015
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)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
6 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
61 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
Expert opinion on the management of pain in hospitalised older patients with cognitive impairment: a mixed methods analysis of a national survey
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12877-015-0056-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kirsty TM Rodger, Corinne Greasley-Adams, Zoe Hodge, Emma Reynish

Abstract

Hospitalised older patients are complex. Comorbidity and polypharmacy complicate frailty. Significant numbers have dementia and/or cognitive impairment. Pain is highly prevalent. The evidence base for pain management in cognitively impaired individuals is sparse due to methodological issues. A wealth of expert opinion is recognised potentially providing a useful evidence base for guiding clinical practice. The study aimed to gather expert opinion on pain management in cognitively impaired hospitalised older people. Consultant Geriatricians listed as dementia leads in the National Dementia Audit were contacted electronically and invited to respond. The questionnaire sought information on their role, confidence and approach to pain management in cognitively impaired hospitalised patients. Responses were analysed using a mixed methods approach. Respondents considered themselves very confident in the clinical field. Awareness of potential to do harm was highly evident. Unequivocally responses suggested paracetamol is safe and should be first choice analgesic, newer opiates should be used preferentially in renal impairment and nefopam is unsafe. A grading of the safety profile of specific medications became apparent, prompting requirement for further evaluation and holistic assessment. The lack of consensus reached highlights the complexity of this clinical field. The use of paracetamol first line, newer opiates in renal impairment and avoidance of nefopam are immediately transferrable to clinical practice. Further review, evaluation and comparison of the risks associated with other specific analgesics are necessary before a comprehensive clinical guideline can be produced.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 60 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 20%
Researcher 8 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Other 4 7%
Other 11 18%
Unknown 13 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 20%
Psychology 9 15%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 14 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 31 August 2018.
All research outputs
#1,970,428
of 22,800,560 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#452
of 3,183 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,046
of 264,547 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#6
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,800,560 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,183 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 264,547 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 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.