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 |
Patient reported outcome measures for measuring dignity in palliative and end of life care: a scoping review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12913-017-2450-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bridget Johnston, Kate Flemming, Melanie Jay Narayanasamy, Carolyn Coole, Beth Hardy |
| Abstract |
Patient reported outcome measures are frequently used standard questionnaires or tools designed to collect information from patients regarding their health status and care. Their use enables accurate and relevant insight into changes in health, quality of life, and symptom severity to be acquired. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify PROMs that had been subject to rigorous development and were suitable for use in palliative and end of life care for clinical practice and/or research purposes. The review had a specific focus on measures which could be used to assess perceptions of dignity in these contexts. A scoping review of English-language papers published between 2005 and 2015. Searches were devised in conjunction with an information science specialist and were undertaken in Medline; PsycINFO; EMBASE; CINAHL; Social Science Citation Index; ASSIA; CENTRAL; CDSR; DARE; HTA; Oxford PROM Bibliography; PROQOLID, using dignity related terms such as personhood; dignity or dignified; patient-centred care; which were linked (via the Boolean operator "AND") to care-related terms such as terminal care; hospice care; palliative care; end of life. Papers were assessed against inclusion criteria and appraised for quality. The search strategy produced an initial 7845 articles. After three rounds of eligibility assessment, eight articles discussing eight patients reported outcome measures were found to meet the inclusion criteria and were included in the final review. These underwent a thorough critical appraisal process. All seven studies were empirical research focused on the development and testing of a PROM. The eight patient reported outcome measures had all undergone some psychometric testing, and covered dignity aspects suggesting that they could be considered for use for research purposes to assess dignity. There were also indications that some could be implemented into a clinical setting. However, each measure had limitations and scope for further development. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 74 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 44 | 59% |
| Belgium | 2 | 3% |
| United States | 2 | 3% |
| Comoros | 1 | 1% |
| Rwanda | 1 | 1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 1% |
| Australia | 1 | 1% |
| Ireland | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 21 | 28% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 42 | 57% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 16 | 22% |
| Scientists | 11 | 15% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 5 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 115 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 10% |
| Researcher | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 16 | 14% |
| Unknown | 41 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 37 | 32% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 16% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 5% |
| Psychology | 5 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 5 | 4% |
| Unknown | 43 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 50. 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 01 January 2019.
All research outputs
#850,204
of 25,661,882 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#203
of 8,734 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,278
of 326,491 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#9
of 162 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,661,882 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,734 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 326,491 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 162 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.