↓ Skip to main content

Does the organisational model of dementia case management make a difference in satisfaction with case management and caregiver burden? An evaluation study

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 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
Does the organisational model of dementia case management make a difference in satisfaction with case management and caregiver burden? An evaluation study
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12877-016-0237-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

José M. Peeters, Anne Margriet Pot, Jacomine de Lange, Peter M. Spreeuwenberg, Anneke L. Francke

Abstract

In the Netherlands, various organisational models of dementia case management exist. In this study the following four models are distinguished, based on differences in the availability of the service and in the case management function: Model 1: the case management service is available from first dementia symptoms + is always a separate specialist function; Model 2: the case management service is only available after a formal dementia diagnosis + is always a separate specialist function; Model 3: the case management service is available from first dementia symptoms + is often a combined function; Model 4: the case management service is only available after a formal dementia diagnosis + is often a combined function. The objectives of this study are to give insight into whether satisfaction with dementia case management and the development of caregiver burden depend on the organisational model. A survey was carried out in regional dementia care networks in the Netherlands among 554 informal carers for people with dementia at the start of case management (response of 85 %), and one year later. Descriptive statistics and multilevel models were used to analyse the data. The satisfaction with the case manager was high in general (an average of 8.0 within a possible range of 1 to 10), although the caregiver burden did not decrease in the first year after starting with case management. No differences were found between the four organisational models regarding the development of caregiver burden. However, statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) were found regarding satisfaction: informal carers in the organisational model where case management is only available after formal diagnosis of dementia and is often a combined function had on average the lowest satisfaction scores. Nevertheless, the satisfaction of informal carers within all organisational models was high (ranging from 7.51 to 8.40 within a range of 1 to 10). Organisational features of case management seem to make little or no difference to the development in caregiver burden and the satisfaction of informal carers. Future research is needed to explore whether the individual characteristics of the case managers themselves are associated with case management outcomes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 18%
Researcher 8 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Other 10 22%
Unknown 5 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 19 42%
Psychology 6 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 9%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Computer Science 2 4%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 5 11%

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 10 March 2016.
All research outputs
#6,381,991
of 7,377,175 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#719
of 760 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#234,998
of 278,481 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#45
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,377,175 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 760 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. 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 278,481 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 47 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.