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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Modified Delphi Consensus to Suggest Key Elements of Stepping On Falls Prevention Program
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Public Health, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00021 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jane E. Mahoney, Lindy Clemson, Amy Schlotthauer, Karin A. Mack, Terry Shea, Vicki Gobel, Sandy Cech |
| Abstract |
Falls among older adults result in substantial morbidity and mortality. Community-based programs have been shown to decrease the rate of falls. In 2007, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded a research study to determine how to successfully disseminate the evidence-based fall prevention program (Stepping On) in the community setting. As the first step for this study, a panel of subject matter experts was convened to suggest which parts of the Stepping On fall prevention program were considered key elements, which could not be modified by implementers. Older adult fall prevention experts from the US, Canada, and Australia participated in a modified Delphi technique process to suggest key program elements of Stepping On. Forty-four experts were invited to ensure that the panel of experts would consist of equal numbers of physical therapists, occupational therapists, geriatricians, exercise scientists, and public health researchers. Consensus was determined by percent of agreement among panelists. A Rasch analysis of item fit was conducted to explore the degree of diversity and/or homogeneity of responses across our panelists. The Rasch analysis of the 19 panelists using fit statistics shows there was a reasonable and sufficient range of diverse perspectives (Infit MnSQ 1.01, Z score -0.1, Outfit MnSQ 0.96, Z score -0.2 with a separation of 4.89). Consensus was achieved that these elements were key: 17 of 18 adult learning elements, 11 of 22 programming, 12 of 15 exercise, 7 of 8 upgrading exercises, 2 of 4 peer co-leader's role, and all of the home visits, booster sessions, group leader's role, and background and training of group leader elements. The top five key elements were: (1) use plain language, (2) develop trust, (3) engage people in what is meaningful and contextual for them, (4) train participants for cues in self-monitoring quality of exercises, and (5) group leader learns about exercises and understands how to progress them. The Delphi consensus process suggested key elements related to Stepping On program delivery. These elements were considered essential to program effectiveness. Findings from this study laid the foundation for translation of Stepping On for broad US dissemination. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 70 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 12 | 17% |
| Unknown | 25 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 14% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Engineering | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 13% |
| Unknown | 31 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 21 May 2019.
All research outputs
#14,048,845
of 22,955,959 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#3,355
of 10,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,341
of 310,289 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#48
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,955,959 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,103 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 310,289 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 76 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.