↓ 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 (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
11 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
109 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
349 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 349 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%
France 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 339 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 60 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 53 15%
Student > Master 51 15%
Student > Bachelor 39 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 31 9%
Other 69 20%
Unknown 46 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 96 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 77 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 10%
Social Sciences 31 9%
Neuroscience 8 2%
Other 45 13%
Unknown 57 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 03 December 2019.
All research outputs
#1,249,776
of 16,322,459 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,309
of 11,469 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,289
of 93,174 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#19
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,322,459 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,469 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 93,174 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.