↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Facilitators and barriers to self-management of nursing home residents: perspectives of health-care professionals in Korean nursing homes

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Interventions in Aging, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
Title
Facilitators and barriers to self-management of nursing home residents: perspectives of health-care professionals in Korean nursing homes
Published in
Clinical Interventions in Aging, October 2015
DOI 10.2147/cia.s93333
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yeon-Hwan Park, Hwal Lan Bang, Ga Hye Kim, Ji Yeon Ha

Abstract

To explore facilitators and barriers to self-management from the viewpoint of staff taking care of nursing home (NH) residents with chronic diseases in South Korea. A qualitative content analysis was done using the focus group interview method. A total of 23 health-care professionals (16 registered nurses and 7 social workers) were interviewed from three urban NHs, each with more than 100 beds. Five facilitators were identified: grouping the residents; the resident's awareness of his/her current health status; the willingness of residents to engage in self-management; residence in the facility; and support from the staff. Additionally, seven barriers were identified: deterioration of the resident's health; the dependency expectations of the resident; hesitation in asking for help; difference in expectations between the staff and the resident's family; insufficient staffing and time; lack of standardized guidelines; and conservative tendencies of the staff due to rigid policies. The findings of this study can help health-care professionals recognize the factors that influence self-management and provide direction for registered nurses and other health professionals involved in supporting self-management programs for NH residents.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Student > Master 5 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Researcher 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 16 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 11 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 15%
Social Sciences 3 8%
Psychology 2 5%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 16 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 14 October 2015.
All research outputs
#19,944,091
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#1,407
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#196,264
of 286,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#40
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 286,876 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.