↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness of interventions to indirectly support food and drink intake in people with dementia: Eating and Drinking Well IN dementiA (EDWINA) systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Geriatrics, May 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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
9 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
17 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
77 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
385 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
Effectiveness of interventions to indirectly support food and drink intake in people with dementia: Eating and Drinking Well IN dementiA (EDWINA) systematic review
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12877-016-0256-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Diane K. Bunn, Asmaa Abdelhamid, Maddie Copley, Vicky Cowap, Angela Dickinson, Amanda Howe, Anne Killett, Fiona Poland, John F. Potter, Kate Richardson, David Smithard, Chris Fox, Lee Hooper

Abstract

Risks and prevalence of malnutrition and dehydration are high in older people but even higher in older people with dementia. In the EDWINA (Eating and Drinking Well IN dementiA) systematic review we aimed to assess effectiveness of interventions aiming to improve, maintain or facilitate food/drink intake indirectly, through food service or dining environment modification, education, exercise or behavioural interventions in people with cognitive impairment or dementia (across all settings, levels of care and support, types and degrees of dementia). We comprehensively searched Medline and twelve further databases, plus bibliographies, for intervention studies with ≥3 cognitively impaired adult participants (any type/stage). 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. Meta-analysis (statistical pooling) was not appropriate so data were tabulated and synthesised narratively. We included 56 interventions (reported in 51 studies). Studies were small and there were no clearly effective, or clearly ineffective, interventions. Promising interventions included: eating meals with care-givers, family style meals, soothing mealtime music, constantly accessible snacks and longer mealtimes, education and support for formal and informal care-givers, spaced retrieval and Montessori activities, facilitated breakfast clubs, multisensory exercise and multicomponent interventions. We found no definitive evidence on effectiveness, or lack of effectiveness, of specific interventions but studies were small and short term. A variety of promising indirect interventions need to be tested in large, high-quality RCTs, and may be approaches that people with dementia and their formal or informal care-givers would wish to try. The systematic review protocol was registered (CRD42014007611) and is published, with the full MEDLINE search strategy, on Prospero (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42014007611).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 385 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 384 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 58 15%
Student > Bachelor 45 12%
Researcher 41 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 39 10%
Student > Postgraduate 24 6%
Other 73 19%
Unknown 105 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 97 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 58 15%
Psychology 25 6%
Social Sciences 22 6%
Sports and Recreations 10 3%
Other 55 14%
Unknown 118 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 78. 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 22 October 2017.
All research outputs
#553,021
of 25,661,882 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#64
of 3,706 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,964
of 313,104 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#1
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,661,882 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,706 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 313,104 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 96% of its contemporaries.
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 has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.