↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Cognitive reframing for carers of people with dementia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
134 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
426 Mendeley
Title
Cognitive reframing for carers of people with dementia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2011
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005318.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Myrra Vernooij-Dassen, Irena Draskovic, Jenny McCleery, Murna Downs

Abstract

The balance of evidence about whether psychosocial interventions for caregivers of people with dementia could reduce carers' psychological morbidity and delay their relatives' institutionalisation is now widely regarded as moderately positive (Brodaty 2003; Spijker 2008). Multi-component, tailor-made psychosocial interventions are considered to be particularly promising (Brodaty 2003; Spijker 2008). These interventions involve multiple mechanisms of action. In this review we focused solely on the effectiveness of one element within psychosocial interventions, cognitive reframing. Cognitive reframing is a component of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). In dementia care, cognitive reframing interventions focus on family carers' maladaptive, self-defeating or distressing cognitions about their relatives' behaviors and about their own performance in the caring role.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 426 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 416 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 63 15%
Student > Master 62 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 57 13%
Student > Bachelor 43 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 29 7%
Other 90 21%
Unknown 82 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 104 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 82 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 38 9%
Social Sciences 34 8%
Unspecified 11 3%
Other 60 14%
Unknown 97 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 31 July 2018.
All research outputs
#3,944,349
of 23,917,076 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,546
of 12,805 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,372
of 145,704 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#82
of 160 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,917,076 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,805 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.8. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 145,704 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 160 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.