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 |
Compassion: a scoping review of the healthcare literature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Palliative Care, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12904-016-0080-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shane Sinclair, Jill M. Norris, Shelagh J. McConnell, Harvey Max Chochinov, Thomas F. Hack, Neil A. Hagen, Susan McClement, Shelley Raffin Bouchal |
| Abstract |
Recent concerns about suboptimal patient care and a lack of compassion have prompted policymakers to question the preparedness of clinicians for the challenging environment in which they practice. Compassionate care is expected by patients and is a professional obligation of clinicians; however, little is known about the state of research on clinical compassion. The purpose of this scoping review was to map the literature on compassion in clinical healthcare. Searches of eight electronic databases and the grey literature were conducted to identify empirical studies published over the last 25 years. Eligible studies explored perceptions or interventions of compassionate care in clinical populations, healthcare professionals, and healthcare students. Following the title and abstract review, two reviewers independently screened full-texts articles, and extracted study data. A narrative approach to synthesizing and mapping the literature was used. Of 36,637 records, 648 studies were retrieved and 44 studies were included in the review. Less than one third of studies included patients. Six themes emerged from studies that explored perceptions of compassionate care: nature of compassion, development of compassion, interpersonal factors related to compassion, action and practical compassion, barriers and enablers of compassion, and outcomes of compassion. Intervention studies included two compassionate care trials with patients and eight educational programs that aimed to improve compassionate care in clinicians and students. This review identifies the limited empirical understanding of compassion in healthcare, highlighting the lack of patient and family voices in compassion research. A deeper understanding of the key behaviors and attitudes that lead to improved patient-reported outcomes through compassionate care is necessary. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 86 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 14 | 16% |
| Canada | 10 | 12% |
| United Kingdom | 9 | 10% |
| United States | 8 | 9% |
| Ireland | 3 | 3% |
| Spain | 2 | 2% |
| New Zealand | 2 | 2% |
| France | 2 | 2% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 33 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 51 | 59% |
| Scientists | 19 | 22% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 15 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 337 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 336 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 56 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 38 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 33 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 23 | 7% |
| Researcher | 19 | 6% |
| Other | 64 | 19% |
| Unknown | 104 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 69 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 49 | 15% |
| Psychology | 38 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 20 | 6% |
| Arts and Humanities | 8 | 2% |
| Other | 34 | 10% |
| Unknown | 119 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 80. 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 09 August 2023.
All research outputs
#545,517
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from BMC Palliative Care
#15
of 1,545 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,712
of 407,196 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Palliative Care
#2
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,545 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 407,196 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 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 93% of its contemporaries.