↓ Skip to main content

A region-based palliative care intervention trial using the mixed-method approach: Japan OPTIM study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Palliative Care, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 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
A region-based palliative care intervention trial using the mixed-method approach: Japan OPTIM study
Published in
BMC Palliative Care, January 2012
DOI 10.1186/1472-684x-11-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tatsuya Morita, Mitsunori Miyashita, Akemi Yamagishi, Nobuya Akizuki, Yoshiyuki Kizawa, Yutaka Shirahige, Miki Akiyama, Kei Hirai, Motohiro Matoba, Masako Yamada, Taketoshi Matsumoto, Takuhiro Yamaguchi, Kenji Eguchi

Abstract

Disseminating palliative care is a critical task throughout the world. Several outcome studies explored the effects of regional palliative care programs on a variety of end-points, and some qualitative studies investigated the process of developing community palliative care networks. These studies provide important insights into the potential benefits of regional palliative care programs, but the clinical implications are still limited, because: 1) many interventions included fundamental changes in the structure of the health care system, and, thus, the results would not be applicable for many regions where structural changes are difficult or unfeasible; 2) patient-oriented outcomes were not measured or explored only in a small number of populations, and interpretation of the results from a patient's view is difficult; and 3) no studies adopted a mixed-method approach using both quantitative and qualitative methodologies to interpret the complex phenomenon from multidimensional perspectives.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 3%
Japan 2 2%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 96 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 15%
Researcher 16 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Other 19 18%
Unknown 23 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 16%
Psychology 7 7%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Unspecified 4 4%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 27 26%
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 08 February 2012.
All research outputs
#15,241,259
of 22,661,413 outputs
Outputs from BMC Palliative Care
#1,083
of 1,240 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,900
of 243,375 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Palliative Care
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,661,413 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,240 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.4. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 243,375 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.