↓ Skip to main content

Field-testing phase of the development of individual cognitive stimulation therapy (iCST) for dementia

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
135 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
Field-testing phase of the development of individual cognitive stimulation therapy (iCST) for dementia
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1499-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lauren A Yates, Vasiliki Orgeta, Phuong Leung, Aimee Spector, Martin Orrell

Abstract

Cognitive Stimulation Therapy (CST) groups for people with dementia are available nationally, and internationally through voluntary organisations, memory services, and in residential care settings. However, groups may not be accessible or best suited for all. Individual Cognitive Stimulation Therapy (iCST) has been developed to provide another means of accessing CST. The programme was field tested by 22 dyads (carers and people with dementia). Dyads were trained in the iCST approach and provided with a manual and accompanying resources. Researchers contacted dyads weekly to provide support and gather adherence data. Quantitative feedback about each session was also collected using 'Monitoring Progress' forms. Upon completion of their allocation sessions, researchers interviewed dyads about their experience. In total, nine dyads were followed up. Inductive thematic analysis was performed on the qualitative data. The aims of field testing were to assess the feasibility of the programme, and the appropriateness of the iCST materials. Sixty-two percent of the themes received an overall 'high' rating, and the majority of activities were classed as 'low' difficulty. Common barriers to completing sessions were; lack of time, illness, and motivation. Carers felt the manual and resources were 'good' and easy to use. Benefits of the programme for the person included; improvements in communication, mood, and alertness. The programme also gave carers insight into the person's abilities and interests, and provided a new channel of communication. Little support was needed to deliver the programme. Implementation of the iCST intervention was feasible. However, the majority of dyads completed fewer than three sessions per week. The training and support package appeared to be suitable as carers were able to deliver the intervention without intensive support. Barriers occurred largely as a result of life commitments, rather than problems with the intervention itself. This study was limited by a high loss to follow up rate. The effectiveness and cost effectiveness of iCST were investigated in a large scale randomised controlled trial (RCT). ISRCTN65945963 Date of trial registration: 05/05/2010.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 133 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 18%
Researcher 19 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 5%
Other 22 16%
Unknown 38 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 38 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 12%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 1%
Other 9 7%
Unknown 38 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 15 July 2016.
All research outputs
#4,191,823
of 22,880,691 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,967
of 7,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,638
of 354,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#47
of 178 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,691 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,651 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 354,866 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 178 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 71% of its contemporaries.