| Title |
Improving the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis using a senior-friendly peer-led community education and mentoring model: a randomized controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Interventions in Aging, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/cia.s130573 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marita Kloseck, Deborah A Fitzsimmons, Mark Speechley, Marie Y Savundranayagam, Richard G Crilly |
| Abstract |
This randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluated a 6-month peer-led community education and mentorship program to improve the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis. Ten seniors (74-90 years of age) were trained to become peer educators and mentors and deliver the intervention. In the subsequent RCT, 105 seniors (mean age =80.5±6.9; 89% female) were randomly assigned to the peer-led education and mentorship program (n=53) or control group (n=52). Knowledge was assessed at baseline and 6 months. Success was defined as discussing osteoporosis risk with their family physician, obtaining a bone mineral density assessment, and returning to review their risk profile and receive advice and/or treatment. Knowledge of osteoporosis did not change significantly. There was no difference in knowledge change between the two groups (mean difference =1.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] of difference -0.76 to 3.36). More participants in the intervention group achieved a successful outcome (odds ratio 0.16, 95% CI 0.06-0.42, P<0.001). Peer-led education and mentorship can promote positive health behavior in seniors. This model was effective for improving osteoporosis risk assessment, diagnosis, and treatment in a community setting. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 74 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 14% |
| Researcher | 7 | 9% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 14 | 19% |
| Unknown | 20 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 9% |
| Psychology | 4 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 14 | 19% |
| Unknown | 23 | 31% |
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 08 November 2020.
All research outputs
#7,050,597
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#661
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,899
of 324,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#20
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st 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 65% 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 324,557 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.