↓ Skip to main content

Recruiting older people at nutritional risk for clinical trials: what have we learned?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
123 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
Recruiting older people at nutritional risk for clinical trials: what have we learned?
Published in
BMC Research Notes, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13104-015-1113-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cynthia Piantadosi, Ian M Chapman, Vasi Naganathan, Peter Hunter, Ian D Cameron, Renuka Visvanathan

Abstract

The difficulty of recruiting older people to clinical trials is well described, but there is limited information about effective ways to screen and recruit older people into trials, and the reasons for their reluctance to enrol. This paper examines recruitment efforts for a community-based health intervention study that targeted older adults. One year randomized control trial. Undernourished men and women, aged ≥ 65 years and living independently in the community were recruited in three Australian states. Participants were allocated to either oral testosterone undecanoate and high calorie oral nutritional supplement or placebo medication and low calorie oral nutritional supplementation. Hospital admissions, functional status, nutritional health, muscle strength, and other variables were assessed. 4023 potential participants were identified and 767 were screened by a variety of methods: hospital note screening, referrals from geriatric health services, advertising and media segments/appearances. 53 participants (7% of total screened) were recruited. The majority of potentially eligible participants declined participation in the trial after reading the information sheet. Media was the more successful method of recruiting, whereas contacting people identified by screening a large number of hospital records was not successful in recruiting any participants. Recruitment of frail and older participants is difficult and multiple strategies are required to facilitate participation. Australian Clinical Trial Registry: ACTRN 12610000356066 date registered 4/5/2010.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 119 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 21%
Researcher 13 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Student > Postgraduate 7 6%
Other 20 16%
Unknown 37 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 18%
Sports and Recreations 7 6%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Psychology 3 2%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 44 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 January 2016.
All research outputs
#18,410,971
of 22,805,349 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#3,015
of 4,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,766
of 264,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#51
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,805,349 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,262 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 264,037 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.