↓ Skip to main content

Engaging patients and families to create a feasible clinical trial integrating palliative and heart failure care: results of the ENABLE CHF-PC pilot clinical trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Palliative Care, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
306 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
Engaging patients and families to create a feasible clinical trial integrating palliative and heart failure care: results of the ENABLE CHF-PC pilot clinical trial
Published in
BMC Palliative Care, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12904-017-0226-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marie Bakitas, J. Nicholas Dionne-Odom, Salpy V. Pamboukian, Jose Tallaj, Elizabeth Kvale, Keith M. Swetz, Jennifer Frost, Rachel Wells, Andres Azuero, Konda Keebler, Imatullah Akyar, Deborah Ejem, Karen Steinhauser, Tasha Smith, Raegan Durant, Alan T. Kono

Abstract

Early palliative care (EPC) is recommended but rarely integrated with advanced heart failure (HF) care. We engaged patients and family caregivers to study the feasibility and site differences in a two-site EPC trial, ENABLE CHF-PC (Educate, Nurture, Advise, Before Life Ends Comprehensive Heartcare for Patients and Caregivers). We conducted an EPC feasibility study (4/1/14-8/31/15) for patients with NYHA Class III/IV HF and their caregivers in academic medical centers in the northeast and southeast U.S. The EPC intervention comprised: 1) an in-person outpatient palliative care consultation; and 2) telephonic nurse coach sessions and monthly calls. We collected patient- and caregiver-reported outcomes of quality of life (QOL), symptom, health, anxiety, and depression at baseline, 12- and 24-weeks. We used linear mixed-models to assess baseline to week 24 longitudinal changes. We enrolled 61 patients and 48 caregivers; between-site demographic differences included age, race, religion, marital, and work status. Most patients (69%) and caregivers (79%) completed all intervention sessions; however, we noted large between-site differences in measurement completion (38% southeast vs. 72% northeast). Patients experienced moderate effect size improvements in QOL, symptoms, physical, and mental health; caregivers experienced moderate effect size improvements in QOL, depression, mental health, and burden. Small-to-moderate effect size improvements were noted in patients' hospital and ICU days and emergency visits. Between-site demographic, attrition, and participant-reported outcomes highlight the importance of intervention pilot-testing in culturally diverse populations. Observations from this pilot feasibility trial allowed us to refine the methodology of an in-progress, full-scale randomized clinical efficacy trial. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03177447 (retrospectively registered, June 2017).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 306 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 306 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 42 14%
Student > Bachelor 34 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 8%
Researcher 18 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 5%
Other 40 13%
Unknown 134 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 73 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 45 15%
Psychology 15 5%
Social Sciences 9 3%
Computer Science 4 1%
Other 20 7%
Unknown 140 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 17 November 2019.
All research outputs
#7,139,320
of 23,314,015 outputs
Outputs from BMC Palliative Care
#779
of 1,269 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,794
of 317,127 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Palliative Care
#12
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,314,015 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,269 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 317,127 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 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.