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 |
A review of the implementation and research strategies of advance care planning in nursing homes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Geriatrics, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12877-016-0179-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
E. Flo, B. S. Husebo, P. Bruusgaard, E. Gjerberg, L. Thoresen, L. Lillemoen, R. Pedersen |
| Abstract |
Nursing home (NH) patients have complex health problems, disabilities and needs for Advance Care Planning (ACP). The implementation of ACP in NHs is a neglected research topic, yet it may optimize the intervention efficacy, or provide explanations for low efficacy. This scoping review investigates methods, design and outcomes and the implementation of ACP (i.e., themes and guiding questions, setting, facilitators, implementers, and promoters/barriers). A systematic search using ACP MESH terms and keywords was conducted in CINAHL, Medline, PsychINFO, Embase and Cochrane libraries. We excluded studies on home-dwelling and hospital patients, including only specific diagnoses and/or chart-based interventions without conversations. Sixteen papers were included. There were large variations in definitions and content of ACP, study design, implementation strategies and outcomes. Often, the ACP intervention or implementation processes were not described in detail. Few studies included patients lacking decision-making capacity, despite the fact that this group is significantly present in most NHs. The chief ACP implementation strategy was education of staff. Among others, ACP improved documentation of and adherence to preferences. Important implementation barriers were non-attending NH physicians, legal challenges and reluctance to participate among personnel and relatives. ACP intervention studies in NHs are few and heterogeneous. Variation in ACP definitions may be related to cultural and legal differences. This variation, along with sparse information about procedures, makes it difficult to collate and compare research results. Essential implementation considerations relate to the involvement and education of nurses, physicians and leaders. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 3 | 18% |
| Netherlands | 3 | 18% |
| Spain | 2 | 12% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 6% |
| Australia | 1 | 6% |
| Congo, The Democratic Republic of the | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 35% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 59% |
| Scientists | 6 | 35% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 214 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 211 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 31 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 26 | 12% |
| Researcher | 23 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 7% |
| Other | 15 | 7% |
| Other | 46 | 21% |
| Unknown | 57 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 55 | 26% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 42 | 20% |
| Social Sciences | 13 | 6% |
| Psychology | 8 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 27 | 13% |
| Unknown | 64 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 12 February 2020.
All research outputs
#2,631,320
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#680
of 3,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,657
of 409,147 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#9
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,721 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 409,147 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.