↓ Skip to main content

Managing diabetes in people with dementia: protocol for a realist review

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, January 2016
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 (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
101 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
Managing diabetes in people with dementia: protocol for a realist review
Published in
Systematic Reviews, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-015-0182-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Frances Bunn, Claire Goodman, Jo Rycroft Malone, Peter Reece Jones, Chris Burton, Greta Rait, Daksha Trivedi, Antony Bayer, Alan Sinclair

Abstract

Worldwide, the prevalences of diabetes and dementia are both increasing, particularly in older people. Rates of diabetes in people with dementia are between 13 and 20 %. Diabetes management and diabetic self-care may be adversely affected by the presence of dementia. There is a need to know what interventions work best in the management of diabetes in people living with dementia (PLWD) in different settings and at different stages of the dementia trajectory. The overall aim is to develop an explanatory account or programme theory about 'what works' in the management of diabetes in people in what context and to identify promising interventions that merit further evaluation. This study uses a realist approach including studies on the management of diabetes in older people, medication management, diabetes-related self-care, workforce issues and assessment and treatment. We will use an iterative, stakeholder driven, four-stage approach. Phase 1: development of initial programme theory/ies through a first scoping of the literature and consultation with key stakeholder groups (user/patient representatives, dementia-care providers, clinicians, diabetes and dementia researchers and diabetes specialists). Phase 2: systematic searches of the evidence to test and develop the theories identified in phase 1. Phase 3: validation of programme theory/ies with a purposive sample of participants from phase 1. Phase 4: actionable recommendations for the management of diabetes in PLWD. A realist synthesis of the evidence will provide a theoretical framework (i.e. an explanation of how interventions work, for whom, in what context and why) for practice and future research work that articulates the barriers and facilitators to effective management of diabetes in people with dementia. By providing possible explanations for the way in which interventions are thought to work and how change is achieved, it will demonstrate how to tailor an intervention to the setting and patient group. The propositions arising from the review will also inform the design of future intervention studies. PROSPERO registration number CRD42015020625 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 100 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 15%
Researcher 12 12%
Student > Master 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 18 18%
Unknown 22 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 19%
Social Sciences 13 13%
Psychology 6 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Other 13 13%
Unknown 25 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 2022.
All research outputs
#2,943,493
of 23,213,531 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#547
of 2,017 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,344
of 395,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#18
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,213,531 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,017 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 395,587 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 86% of its contemporaries.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.