↓ Skip to main content

Are advance directives helpful for good end of life decision making: a cross sectional survey of health professionals

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 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
Are advance directives helpful for good end of life decision making: a cross sectional survey of health professionals
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12910-017-0197-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eimantas Peicius, Aurelija Blazeviciene, Raimondas Kaminskas

Abstract

This paper joins the debate over changes in the role of health professionals when applying advance directives to manage the decision-making process at the end of life care. Issues in relation to advance directives occur in clinical units in Lithuania; however, it remains one of the few countries in the European Union (EU) where the discussion on advance directives is not included in the health-care policy-making agenda. To encourage the discussion of advance directives, a study was designed to examine health professionals' understanding and preferences related to advance directives. In addition, the study sought to explore the views of health care professionals of the application of Advance Directives (AD) in clinical practice in Lithuania. A cross-sectional survey was conducted by interviewing 478 health professionals based at major health care centers in Kaunas district, Lithuania. The design of the study included the use of a questionnaire developed for this study and validated by a pilot study. The collected data were analyzed using standard descriptive statistical methods. The analysis of knowledge about AD revealed some statistically significant differences when comparing the respondents' profession and gender. The analysis also indicated key emerging themes among respondents including tranquility of mind, the longest possible life expectancy and freedom of choice. Further, the study findings revealed that more than half of the study participants preferred to express their will while alive by using advance directives. The study findings revealed a low level of knowledge on advance directives among health professionals. Most health professionals agreed that AD's improved end-of-life decision making while the majority of physicians appreciated AD as the best tool for sharing responsibilities in clinical practice in Lithuania. More physicians than nurses preferred the presence of advance directives to support their decision making in end-of-life situations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 99 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 17%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Researcher 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 5 5%
Other 15 15%
Unknown 35 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 23 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 17%
Psychology 7 7%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 39 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 13 October 2017.
All research outputs
#4,974,217
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#473
of 1,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,936
of 319,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#7
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,009 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 319,138 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.