↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness of interventions to directly support food and drink intake in people with dementia: systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Geriatrics, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
27 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
137 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
449 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Effectiveness of interventions to directly support food and drink intake in people with dementia: systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12877-016-0196-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Asmaa Abdelhamid, Diane Bunn, Maddie Copley, Vicky Cowap, Angela Dickinson, Lucy Gray, Amanda Howe, Anne Killett, Jin Lee, Francesca Li, Fiona Poland, John Potter, Kate Richardson, David Smithard, Chris Fox, Lee Hooper

Abstract

Eating and drinking difficulties are recognised sources of ill health in people with dementia. In the EDWINA (Eating and Drinking Well IN dementiA) systematic review we aimed to assess effectiveness of interventions to directly improve, maintain or facilitate oral food and drink intake, nutrition and hydration status, in people with cognitive impairment or dementia (across all settings, levels of care and support, types and degrees of dementia). Interventions included oral nutrition supplementation, food modification, dysphagia management, eating assistance and supporting the social element of eating and drinking. We comprehensively searched 13 databases for relevant intervention studies. The review was conducted with service user input in accordance with Cochrane Collaboration's guidelines. We duplicated assessment of inclusion, data extraction, and validity assessment, tabulating data, carrying out random effects meta-analysis and narrative synthesis. Forty-three controlled interventions were included, disappointingly none were judged at low risk of bias. Oral nutritional supplementation studies suggested small positive short term but unclear long term effects on nutritional status. Food modification or dysphagia management studies were smaller and of low quality, providing little evidence of an improved nutritional status. Eating assistance studies provided inconsistent evidence, but studies with a strong social element around eating/drinking, although small and of low quality provided consistent suggestion of improvements in aspects of quality of life. There were few data to address stakeholders' questions. We found no definitive evidence on effectiveness, or lack of effectiveness, of specific interventions but studies were small and short term. People with cognitive impairment and their carers have to tackle eating problems despite this lack of evidence, so promising interventions are listed. The need remains for high quality trials tailored for people with cognitive impairment assessing robust outcomes. The systematic review protocol was registered (CRD42014007611) and is published, with the full MEDLINE search strategy, on Prospero [1].

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 449 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 443 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 71 16%
Student > Bachelor 69 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 9%
Researcher 40 9%
Other 24 5%
Other 82 18%
Unknown 122 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 118 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 79 18%
Social Sciences 26 6%
Psychology 23 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 2%
Other 46 10%
Unknown 147 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 13 October 2022.
All research outputs
#1,123,172
of 24,542,484 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#188
of 3,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,506
of 405,128 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#3
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,542,484 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,428 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 405,128 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.