↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

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

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
142 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 A 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 142 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 139 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 16%
Student > Master 22 15%
Researcher 18 13%
Student > Bachelor 15 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 9%
Other 28 20%
Unknown 23 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 40 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 24 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 12%
Neuroscience 9 6%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Other 17 12%
Unknown 29 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 April 2016.
All research outputs
#14,256,180
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#903
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,088
of 369,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#33
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 54% 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 369,133 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.