↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

The effects of a multicomponent dyadic intervention on the mood, behavior, and physical health of people with dementia: a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Interventions in Aging, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
298 Mendeley
Title
The effects of a multicomponent dyadic intervention on the mood, behavior, and physical health of people with dementia: a randomized controlled trial
Published in
Clinical Interventions in Aging, March 2016
DOI 10.2147/cia.s95789
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna-Eva Prick, Jacomine de Lange, Erik Scherder, Jos Twisk, Anne Margriet Pot

Abstract

The effects of a multicomponent dyadic intervention on the mood, behavior, and physical health of people with dementia living in the community were evaluated in a randomized controlled trial. This multicomponent dyadic intervention is a translated and adapted version of an intervention that has been shown to be effective for people with dementia in the US. People with dementia living in the community and their family caregivers (N=111 caregiver-care recipient dyads) were randomly assigned to the intervention and comparison group. The intervention group received home-based physical exercise training, psycho-education, communication skills training, and pleasant activities training during 3 months directed at both the person with dementia and the caregiver. Mood, behavior, and physical health were measured at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. The effects of the study were determined by using generalized estimating equations based on an intention-to-treat analysis. Analyses showed no beneficial effects over time on any of the outcome measures. This study showed no effects. The negative results in this study compared to the study that has been carried out in the US might be explained by the translation, adaptation, and shortening of the intervention used in the US, and a different social context. In addition, the results might be explained by the lack of room for improvement and by experiencing the intervention as too much of a burden. Furthermore, improving physical health might only be effective if the physical exercises are of moderate-to-high-intensity and are tailored in accordance with participants' preferences and needs. For future studies, because dyads often commented positively about the pleasure and support they received, it might also be valuable to measure quality of life outcomes such as relationship quality, pleasure, and self-esteem in dyadic focused interventions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 298 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 298 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 37 12%
Student > Master 33 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 11%
Researcher 27 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 21 7%
Other 42 14%
Unknown 106 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 60 20%
Psychology 40 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 29 10%
Social Sciences 9 3%
Sports and Recreations 9 3%
Other 31 10%
Unknown 120 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 04 April 2016.
All research outputs
#16,188,873
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#1,102
of 1,962 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,560
of 313,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#25
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,962 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 313,048 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.