↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

The development of individual cognitive stimulation therapy (iCST) for dementia

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Interventions in Aging, December 2014
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)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
107 Mendeley
Title
The development of individual cognitive stimulation therapy (iCST) for dementia
Published in
Clinical Interventions in Aging, December 2014
DOI 10.2147/cia.s73844
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

Abstract

Adopting a systematic approach to the development of an intervention, supported by robust theoretical, empirical, and clinical rationales represents best practice. The Medical Research Council (MRC) provides a framework for a systematic step-wise approach to the evaluation of complex interventions. This study describes the development phase of the individual cognitive stimulation therapy (iCST) for dementia trial, within this framework. In the preclinical phase, a recent Cochrane Review of cognitive stimulation for dementia and the current literature on individual cognitive stimulation interventions were examined to establish an evidence base. In addition, people with dementia, carers, and care staff were consulted regarding the acceptability of iCST, and a panel was put together to advise the team on the adaptation of group cognitive stimulation therapy (CST). Phase I (modeling) involved consultations with service users and experts in a series of focus groups, interviews, an online survey, and a consensus conference. Finally, Phase II field testing of the intervention was carried out. Two drafts of the materials were produced before a final version ready for use in the main randomized controlled trial (RCT). Key changes between the drafts included: editorial amendments to improve the clarity of instructions, emphasize the person centeredness of the approach, and reduce the overall length of the introduction section; the simplification of academic terminology and activities deemed "too difficult"; adjustments made to the monitoring-progress forms and session rating scale to enhance user-friendliness; the addition of a "Getting started" section; amendments made to the content of the toolkit; and clearer distinction made between the level of difficulty of activities. The rigorous development of the intervention was beneficial as the feasibility of the intervention was explored both in theory and practice, and consulting with service users ensured that materials were appropriately tailored to their needs. A Phase III RCT is currently being conducted to determine the effectiveness of iCST.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 104 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 17%
Researcher 17 16%
Student > Bachelor 15 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 23 21%
Unknown 7 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 37 35%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 9%
Neuroscience 7 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 13 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 16 August 2016.
All research outputs
#3,715,374
of 16,053,277 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#402
of 1,529 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,876
of 237,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#7
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,053,277 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,529 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. 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 237,900 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 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.