| Title |
Development of TUA-WELLNESS screening tool for screening risk of mild cognitive impairment among community-dwelling older adults
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Interventions in Aging, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/cia.s102925 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Divya Vanoh, Suzana Shahar, Razali Rosdinom, Normah Che Din, Hanis Mastura Yahya, Azahadi Omar |
| Abstract |
Focus on screening for cognitive impairment has to be given particular importance because of the rising older adult population. Thus, this study aimed to develop and assess a brief screening tool consisting of ten items that can be self-administered by community dwelling older adults (TUA-WELLNESS). A total of 1,993 noninstitutionalized respondents aged 60 years and above were selected for this study. The dependent variable was mild cognitive impairment (MCI) assessed using neuropsychological test batteries. The items for the screening tool comprised a wide range of factors that were chosen mainly from the analysis of ordinal logistic regression (OLR) and based on past literature. A suitable cut-off point was developed using receiver operating characteristic analysis. A total of ten items were included in the screening tool. From the ten items, eight were found to be significant by ordinal logistic regression and the remaining two items were part of the tool because they showed strong association with cognitive impairment in previous studies. The area under curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity for cut-off 11 were 0.84%, 83.3%, and 73.4%, respectively. TUA-WELLNESS screening tool has been used to screen for major risk factors of MCI among Malaysian older adults. This tool is only suitable for basic MCI risk screening purpose and should not be used for diagnostic purpose. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 59 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 19% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 12% |
| Researcher | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 10 | 17% |
| Unknown | 16 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 15% |
| Psychology | 5 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 12% |
| Unknown | 21 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 22 June 2016.
All research outputs
#3,343,068
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#357
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,078
of 311,864 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#10
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% 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 81% 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 311,864 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.