↓ Skip to main content

Behaviors in Advance Care Planning and ACtions Survey (BACPACS): development and validation part 1

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
Behaviors in Advance Care Planning and ACtions Survey (BACPACS): development and validation part 1
Published in
BMC Palliative Care, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12904-017-0236-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aliya Kassam, Maureen L. Douglas, Jessica Simon, Shannon Cunningham, Konrad Fassbender, Marta Shaw, Sara N. Davison

Abstract

Although advance care planning (ACP) is fairly well understood, significant barriers to patient participation remain. As a result, tools to assess patient behaviour are required. The objective of this study was to improve the measurement of patient engagement in ACP by detecting existing survey design issues and establishing content and response process validity for a new survey entitled Behaviours in Advance Care Planning and ACtions Survey (BACPACS). We based our new tool on that of an existing ACP engagement survey. Initial item reduction was carried out using behavior change theories by content and design experts to help reduce response burden and clarify questions. Thirty-two patients with chronic diseases (cancer, heart failure or renal failure) were recruited for the think aloud cognitive interviewing with the new, shortened survey evaluating patient engagement with ACP. Of these, n = 27 had data eligible for analysis (n = 8 in round 1 and n = 19 in rounds 2 and 3). Interviews were audio-recorded and analyzed using the constant comparison method. Three reviewers independently listened to the interviews, summarized findings and discussed discrepancies until consensus was achieved. Item reduction from key content expert review and conversation analysis helped decrease number of items from 116 in the original ACP Engagement Survey to 24-38 in the new BACPACS depending on branching of responses. For the think aloud study, three rounds of interviews were needed until saturation for patient clarity was achieved. The understanding of ACP as a construct, survey response options, instructions and terminology pertaining to patient engagement in ACP warranted further clarification. Conversation analysis, content expert review and think aloud cognitive interviewing were useful in refining the new survey instrument entitled BACPACS. We found evidence for both content and response process validity for this new tool.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 22%
Student > Master 7 19%
Researcher 7 19%
Other 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 7 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 12 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 14%
Psychology 3 8%
Social Sciences 3 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 11 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 22 December 2017.
All research outputs
#9,235,680
of 16,682,934 outputs
Outputs from BMC Palliative Care
#642
of 850 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#183,351
of 414,939 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Palliative Care
#64
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,682,934 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 850 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 414,939 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.