↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

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, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 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, January 2015
DOI 10.2147/cia.s93333
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hwal Lan Bang, Yeon-Hwan Park, 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 24%
Student > Bachelor 4 16%
Researcher 3 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 6 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 7 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 16%
Neuroscience 2 8%
Social Sciences 2 8%
Psychology 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 7 28%

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
#4,390,892
of 6,241,002 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#526
of 830 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,126
of 194,024 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#38
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,241,002 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 830 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 194,024 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.