↓ Skip to main content

How effective are volunteers at supporting people in their last year of life? A pragmatic randomised wait-list trial in palliative care (ELSA)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, December 2016
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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
83 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 Mendeley
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.
Title
How effective are volunteers at supporting people in their last year of life? A pragmatic randomised wait-list trial in palliative care (ELSA)
Published in
BMC Medicine, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12916-016-0746-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Catherine Walshe, Steven Dodd, Matt Hill, Nick Ockenden, Sheila Payne, Nancy Preston, Guillermo Perez Algorta

Abstract

Clinical care alone at the end of life is unlikely to meet all needs. Volunteers are a key resource, acceptable to patients, but there is no evidence on care outcomes. This study aimed to determine whether support from a social action volunteer service is better than usual care at improving quality of life for adults in the last year of life. A pragmatic, multi-centre wait-list controlled trial, with participants randomly allocated to receive the volunteer support intervention either immediately or after a 4 week wait. Trained volunteers provided tailored face-to-face support including befriending, practical support and signposting to services, primarily provided within the home, typically for 2-3 hours per week. The primary outcome was rate of change of quality of life at 4 weeks (WHO QOL BREF, a general, culturally sensitive measure). Secondary outcomes included rate of change of quality of life at 8 weeks and Loneliness (De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale), social support (mMOS-SS), and reported use of health and social care services at 4 and 8 weeks. In total, 196 adults (61% (n = 109) female; mean age 72 years) were included in the study. No significant difference was found in main or secondary outcomes at 4 weeks. Rate of change of quality of life showed trends in favour of the intervention (physical quality of life domain: b = 3.98, CI, -0.38 to 8.34; psychological domain: b = 2.59, CI, -2.24 to 7.43; environmental domain: b = 3, CI, -4.13 to 4.91). Adjusted analyses to control for hours of volunteer input found significantly less decrease in physical quality of life in the intervention group (slope (b) 4.43, CI, 0.10 to 8.76). While the intervention also favoured the rate of change of emotional (b = -0.08; CI, -0.52 to 0.35) and social loneliness (b = -0.20; CI, -0.58 to 0.18), social support (b = 0.13; CI, -0.13 to 0.39), and reported use of health and social care professionals (b = 0.16; CI, -0.22 to 0.55), these were not statistically significant. No adverse events were reported. Clinicians can confidently refer to volunteer services at the end of life. Future research should focus on 'dose' to maximise likely impact. The trial was prospectively registered. ISRCTN Registry: ISRCTN12929812 , registered 20 May 2015.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 83 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 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 115 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 17%
Student > Bachelor 15 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 11%
Researcher 11 9%
Other 6 5%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 36 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 20 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 15%
Psychology 7 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 2%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 44 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 66. 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 05 December 2021.
All research outputs
#641,167
of 25,292,646 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#467
of 3,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,278
of 432,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#13
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,292,646 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 432,712 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.