↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Use of the Internet as a prevention tool against cognitive decline in normal aging

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Interventions in Aging, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
Title
Use of the Internet as a prevention tool against cognitive decline in normal aging
Published in
Clinical Interventions in Aging, January 2016
DOI 10.2147/cia.s113758
Pubmed ID
Authors

Blanka Klimova

Abstract

Recent demographic trends indicate that older people appear to be one of the fastest growing population groups worldwide. In the year 2000, people older than 65 years represented 12.4% of the population. This number is expected to rise to 19% by 2030, particularly in developed countries. Therefore, there is sustained effort at both national and international levels to prolong the active life of these people as long as possible. Since the present older generation at the age of 55 years is already digitally literate, the use of technologies is one of the solutions. The purpose of this study is to discuss the role of the Internet in the prevention of cognitive decline in normal aging. The author examines clinical studies that exploit the use of the Internet, including online training programs, in the prevention of cognitive decline in healthy older individuals. The findings of the clinical studies indicate that the use of the Internet, especially online cognitive training programs, may have a positive effect on the improvement of cognitive functions in healthy older adults. Nevertheless, larger sample longitudinal randomized controlled clinical trials aimed at the prevention of cognitive decline among healthy older adults are needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters 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 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 16%
Student > Master 3 8%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 10 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 16%
Psychology 5 14%
Neuroscience 4 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 5%
Other 7 19%
Unknown 11 30%

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 12 September 2016.
All research outputs
#6,049,385
of 8,366,012 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#677
of 997 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,963
of 252,579 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#36
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,366,012 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 997 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 252,579 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.