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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Dementia subtype and living well: results from the Improving the experience of Dementia and Enhancing Active Life (IDEAL) study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12916-018-1135-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yu-Tzu Wu, Linda Clare, John V. Hindle, Sharon M. Nelis, Anthony Martyr, Fiona E. Matthews, on behalf of the Improving the experience of Dementia and Enhancing Active Life study |
| Abstract |
The heterogeneity of symptoms across dementia subtypes has important implications for clinical practice and dementia research. Variation in subtypes and associated symptoms may influence the capability to live well for people with dementia and carers. The aim of this study is to investigate the potential impact of dementia subtypes on the capability to live well for both people with dementia and their carers. The analysis was based on the 1283 dyads of community-dwelling people with dementia and carers in the Improving the experience of Dementia and Enhancing Active Life (IDEAL) project, a large cohort study in Great Britain. Capability to live well was defined using three measures: quality of life, life satisfaction and wellbeing. Structural equation modelling was used to investigate capability to live well in seven dementia subtypes: Alzheimer's disease (AD), Vascular dementia (VaD), mixed AD/VaD, frontotemporal dementia (FTD), Parkinson's disease dementia (PDD), Lewy body dementia (LBD) and unspecified/other, accounting for dyadic data structure and adjusting for age and sex, type of relationship between person with dementia and their carer and the number of chronic conditions. The major subtypes in this study population were AD (56%), VaD (11%) and mixed AD/VaD (21%). Compared to participants with AD, people with non-AD subtypes generally reported a lower capability to live well. Carers for people with PDD (- 1.71; 95% confidence interval (CI) - 3.24, - 0.18) and LBD (- 2.29; 95% CI - 3.84, - 0.75) also reported a lower capability to live well than carers for people with AD. After adjusting for demographic factors and comorbidity, PDD (- 4.28; 95% CI - 5.65, - 2.91) and LBD (- 3.76; 95% CI - 5.14, - 2.39) continued to have the strongest impact on both people with dementia and their carers. This study suggests a variation in capability to live well across dementia subtypes. It is important for care providers to consider different needs across subtypes. Health professionals who provide post-diagnostic support may need to pay more attention to the complex needs of people living with PDD and LBD and their carers. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 12 | 46% |
| Australia | 1 | 4% |
| United States | 1 | 4% |
| Chile | 1 | 4% |
| Japan | 1 | 4% |
| Ireland | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 9 | 35% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 50% |
| Scientists | 8 | 31% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 15% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 110 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 13% |
| Researcher | 13 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 15 | 14% |
| Unknown | 37 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 13% |
| Psychology | 13 | 12% |
| Neuroscience | 12 | 11% |
| Engineering | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 12 | 11% |
| Unknown | 38 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 14 September 2019.
All research outputs
#1,914,887
of 25,918,104 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,338
of 4,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,824
of 351,047 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#25
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,918,104 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,074 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 46.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 351,047 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.