↓ Skip to main content

Evidence of what works to support and sustain care at home for people with dementia: a literature review with a systematic approach

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Geriatrics, May 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 (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
82 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
280 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
Evidence of what works to support and sustain care at home for people with dementia: a literature review with a systematic approach
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12877-015-0053-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alison Dawson, Alison Bowes, Fiona Kelly, Kari Velzke, Richard Ward

Abstract

This paper synthesises research evidence about the effectiveness of services intended to support and sustain people with dementia to live at home, including supporting carers. The review was commissioned to support an inspection regime and identifies the current state of scientific knowledge regarding appropriate and effective services in relation to a set of key outcomes derived from Scottish policy, inspection practice and standards. However, emphases on care at home and reduction in the use of institutional long term care are common to many international policy contexts and welfare regimes. Systematic searches of relevant electronic bibliographic databases crossing medical, psychological and social scientific literatures (CINAHL, IngentaConnect, Medline, ProQuest, PsychINFO and Web of Science) in November 2012 were followed by structured review and full-text evaluation processes, the latter using methodology-appropriate quality assessment criteria drawing on established protocols. Of 131 publications evaluated, 56 were assessed to be of 'high' quality, 62 of 'medium' quality and 13 of 'low' quality. Evaluations identified weaknesses in many published accounts of research, including lack of methodological detail and failure to evidence conclusions. Thematic analysis revealed multiple gaps in the evidence base, including in relation to take-up and use of self-directed support by people with dementia, use of rapid response teams other multidisciplinary approaches, use of technology to support community-dwelling people with dementia, and support for people without access to unpaid or informal support. In many areas, policy and practice developments are proceeding on a limited evidence base. Key issues affecting substantial numbers of existing studies include: poorly designed and overly narrowly focused studies; variability and uncertainty in outcome measurement; lack of focus on the perspectives of people with dementia and supporters; and failure to understanding the complexities of living with dementia, and of the kinds of multifactorial interventions needed to provide holistic and effective support. Weaknesses in the evidence base present challenges both to practitioners looking for guidance on how best to design and deliver evidence-based services to support people living with dementia in the community and their carers and to those charged with the inspection of services.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 280 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 278 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 46 16%
Student > Master 46 16%
Researcher 33 12%
Student > Bachelor 25 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 5%
Other 53 19%
Unknown 63 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 45 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 44 16%
Social Sciences 36 13%
Psychology 29 10%
Arts and Humanities 7 3%
Other 42 15%
Unknown 77 28%
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 January 2024.
All research outputs
#1,719,585
of 25,621,213 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#341
of 3,692 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,237
of 279,707 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#5
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,621,213 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 3,692 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 279,707 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 92% 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 86% of its contemporaries.