↓ Skip to main content

Specialist palliative care services for adults with advanced, incurable illness in hospital, hospice, or community settings—protocol for a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
205 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
Specialist palliative care services for adults with advanced, incurable illness in hospital, hospice, or community settings—protocol for a systematic review
Published in
Systematic Reviews, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13643-015-0121-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jan Gaertner, Waldemar Siemens, Gerd Antes, Joerg J Meerpohl, Carola Xander, Guido Schwarzer, Stephanie Stock, Gerhild Becker

Abstract

Specialist palliative care (SPC) interventions aim to relieve and prevent suffering in the physical, psychological, social, and spiritual domain. Therefore, SPC is carried out by a multi-professional team with different occupations (e.g., physician, nurse, psychologist, and social worker). Remaining skepticism concerning the need for SPC may be based on the scarcity of high-quality evaluations about the external evidence for SPC. Therefore, we will conduct a systematic review according to Cochrane standards to examine the effects of SPC for adults with advanced illness. The comprehensive systematic literature search will include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs. We will search the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and PsycINFO. Patients must be adults suffering from life-limiting diseases. Proxy and caregiver outcomes will not be assessed in order to ensure a clear and well-defined research question for this review. Interventions may be in an in- or outpatient setting, e.g., consulting service, palliative care ward, and palliative outpatient clinic. In line with the multi-dimensional scope of palliative care, the primary outcome is quality of life (QoL). Key secondary outcomes are patients' symptom burden, place of death and survival, and health economic aspects. Subgroup analysis will assess results according to cancer type, age, early vs not early SPC, site of care, and setting. Analysis will be performed with the current RevMan software. We will use the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias assessment tool. The quality of evidence will be judged according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The available evidence will be summarized and discussed to provide a basis for decision-making among health care professionals and policy makers. For SPC, we believe that multi-professional care is of utmost importance. Therefore, single-profession interventions such as physician consultations will not be included. Based on the multi-dimensional scope of palliative care, we chose QoL as the primary outcome, despite an expected heterogeneity among the QoL outcomes. We consider unidimensional endpoints such as "pain" for the physical domain to be inadequate for capturing the true scope of (S)PC (i.e., QoL) as defined by the World Health Organization. PROSPERO CRD42015020674.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 205 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 204 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 12%
Student > Bachelor 21 10%
Researcher 15 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 7%
Other 40 20%
Unknown 56 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 42 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 40 20%
Psychology 19 9%
Social Sciences 9 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Other 24 12%
Unknown 66 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 May 2020.
All research outputs
#17,774,112
of 22,829,083 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,705
of 1,998 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,200
of 274,965 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#23
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,083 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,998 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 274,965 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.