↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Medical day hospital care for older people versus alternative forms of care

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
45 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
250 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Medical day hospital care for older people versus alternative forms of care
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001730.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lesley Brown, Anne Forster, John Young, Tom Crocker, Alex Benham, Peter Langhorne

Abstract

The proportion of the world's population aged over 60 years is increasing. Therefore, there is a need to examine different methods of healthcare provision for this population. Medical day hospitals provide multidisciplinary health services to older people in one location. To examine the effectiveness of medical day hospitals for older people in preventing death, disability, institutionalisation and improving subjective health status. Our search included the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Register of Studies, CENTRAL (2013, Issue 7), MEDLINE via Ovid (1950-2013 ), EMBASE via Ovid (1947-2013) and CINAHL via EbscoHost (1980-2013). We also conducted cited reference searches, searched conference proceedings and trial registries, hand searched select journals, and contacted relevant authors and researchers to inquire about additional data. Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing medical day hospitals with alternative care for older people (mean/median > 60 years of age). Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data from included trials. We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. Trials were sub-categorised as comprehensive care, domiciliary care or no comprehensive care. Sixteen trials (3689 participants) compared day hospitals with comprehensive care (five trials), domiciliary care (seven trials) or no comprehensive care (four trials). Overall there was low quality evidence from these trials for the following results.For the outcome of death, there was no strong evidence for or against day hospitals compared to other treatments overall (odds ratio (OR) 1.05; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.28; P = 0.66), or to comprehensive care (OR 1.26; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.82; P = 0.22), domiciliary care (OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.61 to 1.55; P = 0.89), or no comprehensive care (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.22; P = 0.43).For the outcome of death or deterioration in activities of daily living (ADL), there was no strong evidence for day hospital attendance compared to other treatments (OR 1.07; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.49; P = 0.70), or to comprehensive care (OR 1.18; 95% CI 0.63 to 2.18; P = 0.61), domiciliary care (OR 1.41; 95% CI 0.82 to 2.42; P = 0.21) or no comprehensive care (OR 0.76; 95% CI 0.56 to 1.05; P = 0.09).For the outcome of death or poor outcome (institutional care, dependency, deterioration in physical function), there was no strong evidence for day hospitals compared to other treatments (OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.15; P = 0.49), or compared to comprehensive care (OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.40; P = 0.74) or domiciliary care (OR 1.08; 95% CI 0.67 to 1.74; P = 0.75). However, compared with no comprehensive care there was a difference in favour of day hospitals (OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.99; P = 0.04).For the outcome of death or institutional care, there was no strong evidence for day hospitals compared to other treatments overall (OR 0.85; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.14; P = 0.28), or to comprehensive care (OR 1.00; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.44; P = 0.99), domiciliary care (OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.57 to1.92; P = 0. 88) or no comprehensive care (OR 0.63; 95% CI 0.40 to 1.00; P = 0.05).For the outcome of deterioration in ADL, there was no strong evidence that day hospital attendance had a different effect than other treatments overall (OR 1.11; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.80; P = 0.67) or compared with comprehensive care (OR 1.21; 0.58 to 2.52; P = 0.61), or domiciliary care (OR 1.59; 95% CI 0.87 to 2.90; P = 0.13). However, day hospital patients showed a reduced odds of deterioration compared with those receiving no comprehensive care (OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.97; P = 0.04) and significant subgroup differences (P = 0.04).For the outcome of requiring institutional care, there was no strong evidence for day hospitals compared to other treatments (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.58 to 1.21; P = 0.35), or to comprehensive care (OR 0.91; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.19; P = 0.49), domiciliary care (OR 1.49; 95% CI 0.53 to 4.25; P = 0.45), or no comprehensive care (OR 0.58; 95% CI 0.28 to 1.20; P = 0.14). There is low quality evidence that medical day hospitals appear effective compared to no comprehensive care for the combined outcome of death or poor outcome, and for deterioration in ADL. There is no clear evidence for other outcomes, or an advantage over other medical care provision.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 45 tweeters 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 250 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Unknown 246 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 48 19%
Student > Bachelor 29 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 10%
Researcher 24 10%
Student > Postgraduate 16 6%
Other 48 19%
Unknown 60 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 70 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 37 15%
Psychology 16 6%
Social Sciences 14 6%
Unspecified 10 4%
Other 35 14%
Unknown 68 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 16 August 2019.
All research outputs
#1,035,499
of 22,815,414 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,312
of 12,317 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,753
of 263,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#56
of 289 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,815,414 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,317 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.4. 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 263,968 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 289 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.