| Title |
Additional measures do not improve the diagnostic accuracy of the Hospital Admission Risk Profile for detecting downstream quality of life in community-dwelling older people presenting to a hospital emergency department
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Interventions in Aging, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.2147/cia.s56086 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
K Grimmer, S Milanese, K Beaton, A Atlas |
| Abstract |
The Hospital Admission Risk Profile (HARP) instrument is commonly used to assess risk of functional decline when older people are admitted to hospital. HARP has moderate diagnostic accuracy (65%) for downstream decreased scores in activities of daily living. This paper reports the diagnostic accuracy of HARP for downstream quality of life. It also tests whether adding other measures to HARP improves its diagnostic accuracy. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 54 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Unknown | 14 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 13% |
| Sports and Recreations | 4 | 7% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 4% |
| Psychology | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 14% |
| Unknown | 18 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 09 June 2017.
All research outputs
#6,930,354
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#640
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,327
of 319,280 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#11
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 319,280 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.