↓ Skip to main content

Nationwide continuous monitoring of end-of-life care via representative networks of general practitioners in Europe

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Family Practice, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Nationwide continuous monitoring of end-of-life care via representative networks of general practitioners in Europe
Published in
BMC Family Practice, June 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2296-14-73
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lieve Van den Block, Bregje Onwuteaka-Philipsen, Koen Meeussen, Gé Donker, Francesco Giusti, Guido Miccinesi, Viviane Van Casteren, Tomas Vega Alonso, Oscar Zurriaga, Luc Deliens

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although end-of-life care has become an issue of great clinical and public health concern in Europe and beyond, we lack population-based nationwide data that monitor and compare the circumstances of dying and care received in the final months of life in different countries. The European Sentinel GP Networks Monitoring End of Life Care (EURO SENTIMELC) study was designed to describe and compare the last months of life of patients dying in different European countries. We aim to describe how representative GP networks in the EURO SENTIMELC study operate to monitor end of life care in a country, to describe used methodology, research procedures, representativity and characteristics of the population reached using this methodology. METHODS: Nationwide representative Networks of General Practitioners (GPs) -- ie epidemiological surveillance systems representative of all GPs in a country or large region of a country -- in Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Spain continuously registered every deceased patient (>18 year) in their practice, using weekly standardized registration forms, during two consecutive years (2009--2010).All GPs were asked to identify patients who had died "non-suddenly". The last three months of these patients' lives was surveyed retrospectively. Several quality control measures were used to ensure data of high scientific quality. RESULTS: A total of 6858 deaths were registered of which two thirds died non-suddenly (from 62% in the Netherlands to 69% in Spain), representative for the GP populations in the participating countries. Of all non-sudden deaths, between 32% and 44% of deaths were aged 85 or older; between 46% and 54% were female, and between 23% and 49% died at home. Cancer was cause of death in 37% to 53% of non-sudden death cases in the four participating countries. CONCLUSION: Via the EURO SENTI-MELC methodology, we can build a descriptive epidemiological database on end-of-life care provision in several EU countries, measuring across setting and diseases. The data can serve as baseline measurement to compare and monitor end-of-life care over time. The use of representative GP networks for end-of-life care monitoring has huge potential in Europe where several of these networks are operational.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 49 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 20%
Student > Master 10 20%
Student > Bachelor 2 4%
Other 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 7 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 49%
Psychology 5 10%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Philosophy 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 10 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 25 July 2013.
All research outputs
#12,136,595
of 21,347,367 outputs
Outputs from BMC Family Practice
#963
of 1,847 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,962
of 176,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Family Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,347,367 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,847 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 176,660 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them