↓ Skip to main content

Barriers and facilitators in providing oral health care to nursing home residents, from the perspective of care aides—a systematic review protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, April 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 (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 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
Barriers and facilitators in providing oral health care to nursing home residents, from the perspective of care aides—a systematic review protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0231-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthias Hoben, Huimin Hu, Tianyuan Xiong, Angelle Kent, Nadia Kobagi, Minn N. Yoon

Abstract

Unregulated care aides provide up to 80 % of direct resident care in nursing homes. They have little formal training, manage high workloads, frequently experience responsive behaviours from residents, and are at high risk for burnout. This affects quality of resident care, including quality of oral health care. Poor quality of oral health care in nursing homes has severe consequences for residents and the health care system. Improving quality of oral health care requires tailoring interventions to identified barriers and facilitators if these interventions are to be effective. Identifying barriers and facilitators from the care aide's perspective is crucial. We will systematically search the databases MEDLINE, Embase, Evidence Based Reviews-Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, and Web of Science. We will include qualitative and quantitative research studies and systematic reviews published in English that assess barriers and facilitators, as perceived by care aides, to providing oral health care to nursing home residents. Two reviewers will independently screen studies for eligibility. We will also search by hand the contents of key journals, publications of key authors, and reference lists of all the studies included. Two reviewers will independently assess the methodological quality of the studies included using four validated checklists appropriate for different research designs. Discrepancies at any stage of review will be resolved by consensus. We will conduct a thematic analysis of barriers and facilitators using all studies included. If quantitative studies are sufficiently homogeneous, we will conduct random-effects meta-analyses of the associations of barriers and facilitators with each other, with care aide practices in resident oral health care, and with residents' oral health. If quantitative study results cannot be pooled, we will present a narrative synthesis of the results. Finally, we will compare quantitative findings to qualitative studies to identify hypothesized associations or effects not yet tested quantitatively. This review will advance the development of effective strategies for improving quality of oral health care and highlight gaps in research on barriers and facilitators to providing oral health care to nursing home residents, as perceived by care aides. PROSPERO CRD42015032454.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 115 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 16%
Student > Bachelor 18 16%
Student > Postgraduate 8 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 4%
Other 21 18%
Unknown 39 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 22%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 3%
Psychology 3 3%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 43 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 20 April 2016.
All research outputs
#3,205,547
of 22,860,626 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#607
of 2,000 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,407
of 301,014 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#9
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,860,626 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,000 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 301,014 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 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 68% of its contemporaries.