↓ Skip to main content

Transcending differences to study the transcendent: an exploratory study of researchers’ and chaplains’ reflections on interdisciplinary spiritual care research collaboration

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Palliative Care, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
98 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
Transcending differences to study the transcendent: an exploratory study of researchers’ and chaplains’ reflections on interdisciplinary spiritual care research collaboration
Published in
BMC Palliative Care, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12904-015-0004-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Richard A Powell, Linda Emanuel, George Handzo, John Lantos, Laura B Dunn, Ellen L Idler, Diane J Wilkie, Kevin Massey, William T Summerfelt, Marilyn JD Barnes, Tammie E Quest, Allison Kestenbaum, Karen Steinhauser, George Fitchett, Angelika Zollfrank, Annette K Olsen, Tracy A Balboni, Dane Sommer

Abstract

Despite recognition of the centrality of professional board-certified chaplains (BCC) in palliative care, the discipline has little research to guide its practices. To help address this limitation, HealthCare Chaplaincy Network funded six proposals in which BCCs worked collaboratively with established researchers. Recognizing the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration in the development of a new field, this paper reports on an exploratory study of project members' reflections over time on the benefits and challenges of conducting inter-disciplinary spiritual care research. Data collection occurred in two stages. Stage 1 entailed two independent, self-reflective focus groups, organized by professional discipline, mid-way through the site projects. Stage 2 entailed end-of-project site reports and a conference questionnaire. Eighteen professionals participated in the group discussions. Stage 1: researchers perceived chaplains as eager workers passionately committed to their patients and to research, and identified challenges faced by chaplains in learning to conduct research. Chaplains perceived researchers as passionate about their work, were concerned research might uncover negative findings for their profession, and sensed they used a dissimilar paradigm from their research colleagues regarding the 'ways of relating' to knowledge and understanding. Stage 2: researchers and chaplains noted important changes they ascribed to the interdisciplinary collaboration that were classified into six domains of cultural and philosophical understanding: respect; learning; discovery; creativity; fruitful partnerships; and learning needs. Chaplains and researchers initially expressed divergent perspectives on the research collaborations. During the projects' lifespans, these differences were acknowledged and addressed. Mutual appreciation for each discipline's strengths and contributions to inter-professional dialogue emerged.

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 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 98 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 11%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 9%
Researcher 6 6%
Other 16 16%
Unknown 30 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 24 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 12%
Social Sciences 7 7%
Psychology 7 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 33 34%
Attention Score in Context

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 05 December 2015.
All research outputs
#15,418,973
of 25,750,437 outputs
Outputs from BMC Palliative Care
#1,094
of 1,553 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#140,657
of 280,500 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Palliative Care
#15
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,750,437 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,553 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 280,500 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.