↓ Skip to main content

Healthy ageing in Europe: prioritizing interventions to improve health literacy

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
120 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
Healthy ageing in Europe: prioritizing interventions to improve health literacy
Published in
BMC Research Notes, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13104-016-2056-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julii Brainard, Yoon Loke, Charlotte Salter, Tamás Koós, Péter Csizmadia, Alexandra Makai, Boróka Gács, Mária Szepes, On behalf of the Irohla Consortium

Abstract

Health literacy (HL) is low for 40-50 % of the population in developed nations, and is strongly linked to many undesirable health outcomes. Older adults are particularly at risk. The intervention research on health literacy in ageing populations project systematically created a large inventory of HL interventions targeting adults age 50+ , to support practical production of policy and practice guidelines for promoting health literacy in European populations. We comprehensively surveyed international scientific literature, grey literature and other sources (published 2003+) for implemented HL interventions that involved older adults. Studies were screened for eligibility criteria and further selected for aspects important in European public health policy, including priority diseases, risk factors and vulnerable target groups. Interventions were prioritised using a multiple criteria tool to select final interventions that also featured strong evidence of efficacy and a broad range of strategies. From nearly 7000 written summaries, 1097 met inclusion criteria, of which 233 were chosen for scoring and ranking. Of these, seven had the highest multi-criteria scores. Eight more articles were selected based on rounded criteria including a high multi-criteria score as well as elements of innovation. Final selections were 18 articles describing 15 programmes, which feature strong evidence of efficacy among important diseases or risk factors and vulnerable groups, or that had success with elements of innovation were identified. Most programmes tried to increase skills in communication, self-management and understanding healthcare or lifestyle choices. These programmes have multiple positive attributes which could be used as guidance for developing innovative intervention programmes to trial on European older adults. They provide evidence of efficacy in addressing high priority diseases and risk factors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 119 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 11%
Researcher 12 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Student > Postgraduate 7 6%
Other 28 23%
Unknown 32 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 13%
Social Sciences 10 8%
Psychology 5 4%
Engineering 3 3%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 43 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 18 May 2016.
All research outputs
#13,469,948
of 22,870,727 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#1,685
of 4,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,086
of 311,729 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#36
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,870,727 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,268 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 311,729 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 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 58% of its contemporaries.