↓ Skip to main content

Identifying common impairments in frail and dependent older people: validation of the COPE assessment for non-specialised health workers in low resource primary health care settings

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
162 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
Identifying common impairments in frail and dependent older people: validation of the COPE assessment for non-specialised health workers in low resource primary health care settings
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12877-015-0121-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jotheeswaran AT, Amit Dias, Ian Philp, John Beard, Vikram Patel, Martin Prince

Abstract

Frail and dependent older people in resource-poor settings are poorly served by health systems that lack outreach capacity. The COPE (Caring for Older PEople) multidimensional assessment tool is designed to help community health workers (CHWs) identify clinically significant impairments and deliver evidence-based interventions Older people (n = 150) identified by CHWs as frail or dependent, were assessed at home by the CHW using the structured COPE assessment tool, generating information on impairments in nutrition, mobility, vision, hearing, continence, cognition, mood and behaviour. The older people were reassessed by local physicians who reached a clinical judgment regarding the presence or absence of the same impairments based upon clinical examination guided by the EASY-Care assessment tool. The COPE tool was considered easy to administer, and gave CHWs a sense of empowerment to understand and act upon the needs of older people. Agreement between COPE assessment by CHW and clinician assessors was modest (ranged from 45.8 to 91.3 %) for most impairments. However, the prevalence of impairments was generally higher according to clinicians, particularly for visual impairment (98.7 vs 45.8 %), cognitive impairment (78.4 vs. 38.2 %) and depression (82.0 vs. 59.9 %). Most cases identified by WHO-COPE were clinician confirmed (positive predictive values - 72.2 to 98.5 %), and levels of disability and needs for care among those identified by COPE were higher than those additionally identified by the clinician alone. The COPE is a feasible tool for the identification of specific impairments in frail dependent older people in the community. Those identified are likely to be confirmed as having clinically relevant problems by clinicians working in the same service, and the COPE may be particularly effective at targeting attention upon those with the most substantial unmet needs.

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 162 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Unknown 160 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 23 14%
Student > Master 19 12%
Student > Bachelor 18 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 4%
Other 33 20%
Unknown 49 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 16%
Psychology 15 9%
Social Sciences 14 9%
Engineering 4 2%
Other 20 12%
Unknown 53 33%
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 27 May 2016.
All research outputs
#20,294,248
of 22,830,751 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#2,859
of 3,188 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#234,283
of 279,403 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#32
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,830,751 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,188 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 279,403 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.