| Title |
Sensory and memory stimulation as a means to care for individuals with dementia in long-term care facilities
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Interventions in Aging, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/cia.s153113 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michael Mileski, Joseph Baar Topinka, Matthew Brooks, Corie Lonidier, Kelly Linker, Kelsey Vander Veen |
| Abstract |
The primary objective of this study was to identify and further examine the facilitators and barriers of utilizing sensory and memory stimulation as a means to care for individuals with dementia who live in long-term care settings. The authors conducted a literature review of 30 academic articles found using the databases such as CINAHL, PubMed, and Academic Search Ultimate from the past 15 years. Facilitator and barrier themes were found within each article and analyzed for their relevance to sensory and memory stimulation therapies and their effects on individuals with dementia. The most common facilitator was improved communication. The top three barriers were access, staff training, and mixed results. Reminiscence therapy appears to provide a person-centered method of care for those who otherwise have problems communicating. These implementations will be more effective if they have the support of staff and management. The authors conclude that sensory and memory stimulation therapies have the potential to help improve many dementia-specific issues for individuals living in long-term care settings. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 106 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 19 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 4% |
| Lecturer | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 14 | 13% |
| Unknown | 40 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 22 | 21% |
| Psychology | 11 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 15 | 14% |
| Unknown | 44 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 06 July 2023.
All research outputs
#2,007,071
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#218
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,495
of 339,234 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#8
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 339,234 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 87% 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 82% of its contemporaries.