↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Effectiveness of different memory training programs on improving hyperphagic behaviors of residents with dementia: a longitudinal single-blind study

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
Title
Effectiveness of different memory training programs on improving hyperphagic behaviors of residents with dementia: a longitudinal single-blind study
Published in
Clinical Interventions in Aging, January 2016
DOI 10.2147/cia.s102027
Pubmed ID
Authors

Li-Chan Lin, Chieh-Chun Kao, Shiao-Chi Wu, Ker-Neng Lin, Ching-Kuan Liu

Abstract

Hyperphagia increases eating-associated risks for people with dementia and distress for caregivers. The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term effectiveness of spaced retrieval (SR) training and SR training combined with Montessori activities (SR + M) for improving hyperphagic behaviors of special care unit residents with dementia. The study enrolled patients with dementia suffering from hyperphagia resident in eight institutions and used a cluster-randomized single-blind design, with 46 participants in the SR group, 49 in the SR + M group, and 45 participants in the control group. For these three groups, trained research assistants collected baseline data on hyperphagic behavior, pica, changes in eating habits, short meal frequency, and distress to caregivers. The SR and SR + M groups underwent memory training over a 6-week training period (30 sessions), and a generalized estimating equation was used to compare data of all the three groups of subjects obtained immediately after the training period and at follow-ups 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months later. Results showed that the hyperphagic and pica behaviors of both the SR and SR + M groups were significantly improved (P<0.001) and that the effect lasted for 3 months after training. The improvement of fast eating was significantly superior in the SR + M group than in the SR group. The improvement in distress to caregivers in both intervention groups lasted only until the posttest. Improvement in changes in eating habits of the two groups was not significantly different from that of the control group. SR and SR + M training programs can improve hyperphagic behavior of patients with dementia. The SR + M training program is particularly beneficial for the improvement of rapid eating. Caregivers can choose a suitable memory training program according to the eating problems of their 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 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 82 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 23%
Researcher 15 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Other 6 7%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 14 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 18 22%
Psychology 17 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 18%
Neuroscience 4 5%
Arts and Humanities 1 1%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 20 24%

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 24 May 2016.
All research outputs
#5,860,923
of 7,747,098 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#756
of 950 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,827
of 268,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#47
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,747,098 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 950 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 268,948 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.