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 |
A feasibility study comparing UK older adult mental health inpatient wards which use protected engagement time with other wards which do not: study protocol
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Pilot and Feasibility Studies, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40814-016-0049-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fiona M. Nolan, Chris Fox, Richard Cheston, David Turner, Allan Clark, Emily Dodd, Mary-Ellen Khoo, Richard Gray |
| Abstract |
Protected engagement time (PET) is a concept of managing staff time on mental health inpatient wards with the aim of increasing staff and patient interaction. Despite apparent widespread use of PET, there remains a dearth of evidence as to how it is implemented and whether it carries benefits for staff or patients. This protocol describes a study which is being carried out on mental health wards caring for older adults (aged over 65) in England. The study shares a large proportion of the procedures, measures and study team membership of a recently completed investigation of the impact of PET in adult acute mental health wards. The study aims to identify prevalence and components of PET to construct a model for the intervention, in addition to testing the feasibility of the measures and procedures in preparation for a randomised trial. The study comprises four modules and uses a mixed methods approach. Module 1 involves mapping all inpatient wards in England which provide care for older adults, including those with dementia, ascertaining how many of these provide PET and in what way. Module 2 uses a prospective cohort method to compare five older adult mental health wards that use PET with five that do not across three National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust sites. The comparison comprises questionnaires, observation tools and routinely collected clinical service data and combines validated measures with questions developed specifically for the study. Module 3 entails an in-depth case study evaluation of three of the participating PET wards (one from each NHS Trust site) using semi-structured interviews with patients, carers and staff. Module 4 describes the development of a model and fidelity scale for PET using the information derived from the other modules with a working group of patients, carers and staff. This is a feasibility study to test the application of the measures and methods in inpatient wards for older adults and develop a draft model for the intervention. The next stage will prospectively involve testing of the model and fidelity scale in randomised conditions to provide evidence for the effectiveness of PET as an intervention. ISRCTN31919196. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 | 5 | 63% |
| Australia | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 2 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 38% |
| Scientists | 2 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 31 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 13% |
| Researcher | 4 | 13% |
| Professor | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 25% |
| Unknown | 8 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 7 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 13 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 02 August 2018.
All research outputs
#5,922,229
of 24,184,356 outputs
Outputs from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#368
of 1,149 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,890
of 404,798 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#5
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,184,356 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,149 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. 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 404,798 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 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 73% of its contemporaries.