↓ Skip to main content

Piloting a new approach in primary care to identify, assess and support carers of people with terminal illnesses: a feasibility study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Primary Care, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
17 X users

Readers on

mendeley
156 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
Piloting a new approach in primary care to identify, assess and support carers of people with terminal illnesses: a feasibility study
Published in
BMC Primary Care, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12875-016-0414-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emma Carduff, Alison Jarvis, Gill Highet, Anne Finucane, Marilyn Kendall, Nadine Harrison, Jane Greenacre, Scott A Murray

Abstract

General practices in the United Kingdom are encouraged to have a protocol for the identification of carers and a mechanism for social care referral. However, a minority of carers are identified and those caring for someone with a terminal illness often cope until the situation becomes overwhelming. Earlier identification could enable more timely support. The aim of this project was to model and pilot a systematic approach to identify, assess and support carers of people with supportive and palliative care needs in primary care. The intervention was modelled on the Medical Research Council complex intervention framework with a preliminary theoretical phase, which has been reported elsewhere. In this study, which lasted 12 months, four general practices were recruited. Each practice identified a 'carer liaison' person to take the lead in identifying carers, followed by assessment and support using a toolkit modelled from the earlier phase. Qualitative evaluation interviews were conducted with carers who had received the intervention and the carer liaisons and general practitioners in the pilot practices. A stakeholder event was held to disseminate and deliberate the findings. The practices' populations ranged from 5840 to 10832 patients and across the four practices, 83 carers were identified. Thirty six carers were identified from practice registers (disease - 16; palliative care - 9; carer - 11; advanced care plan - 12), whilst 28 were identified opportunistically by practice staff at appointments or at home. Seven carers self-identified. Overall, 81 carers received the carer pack and 25 returned the Carer Support Needs Assessment Tool (CSNAT) form. Eleven carers received a follow up call from the practice to discuss support and 12 were also referred/signposted for support. Qualitative interviews suggest carers valued connection with their practices but the paperwork in the toolkit was onerous. This approach to identifying and supporting carers was acceptable, but success was dependent on engagement within the whole practice. Carers did not tend to self-identify, nor ask for help. Practices need to proactively identify carers using existing opportunities, resources and computer systems, and also adopt a public health approach to raise carer awareness and perceived support within their communities.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 156 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 156 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 17%
Student > Bachelor 22 14%
Researcher 19 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 5%
Other 20 13%
Unknown 46 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 36 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 28 18%
Social Sciences 13 8%
Psychology 12 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 1%
Other 10 6%
Unknown 55 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 19 August 2019.
All research outputs
#2,702,462
of 25,368,786 outputs
Outputs from BMC Primary Care
#326
of 2,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,651
of 409,963 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Primary Care
#9
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,368,786 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 2,359 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 409,963 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 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.