↓ Skip to main content

A knowledge synthesis of culturally- and spiritually-sensitive end-of-life care: findings from a scoping review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Geriatrics, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
85 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
281 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 knowledge synthesis of culturally- and spiritually-sensitive end-of-life care: findings from a scoping review
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12877-016-0282-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mei Lan Fang, Judith Sixsmith, Shane Sinclair, Glen Horst

Abstract

Multiple factors influence the end-of-life (EoL) care and experience of poor quality services by culturally- and spiritually-diverse groups. Access to EoL services e.g. health and social supports at home or in hospices is difficult for ethnic minorities compared to white European groups. A tool is required to empower patients and families to access culturally-safe care. This review was undertaken by the Canadian Virtual Hospice as a foundation for this tool. To explore attitudes, behaviours and patterns to utilization of EoL care by culturally and spiritually diverse groups and identify gaps in EoL care practice and delivery methods, a scoping review and thematic analysis of article content was conducted. Fourteen electronic databases and websites were searched between June-August 2014 to identify English-language peer-reviewed publications and grey literature (including reports and other online resources) published between 2004-2014. The search identified barriers and enablers at the systems, community and personal/family levels. Primary barriers include: cultural differences between healthcare providers; persons approaching EoL and family members; under-utilization of culturally-sensitive models designed to improve EoL care; language barriers; lack of awareness of cultural and religious diversity issues; exclusion of families in the decision-making process; personal racial and religious discrimination; and lack of culturally-tailored EoL information to facilitate decision-making. This review highlights that most research has focused on decision-making. There were fewer studies exploring different cultural and spiritual experiences at the EoL and interventions to improve EoL care. Interventions evaluated were largely educational in nature rather than service oriented.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 281 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 281 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 46 16%
Student > Bachelor 39 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 9%
Researcher 15 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 5%
Other 53 19%
Unknown 89 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 61 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 43 15%
Social Sciences 24 9%
Psychology 15 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 2%
Other 38 14%
Unknown 93 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 20 September 2021.
All research outputs
#4,842,013
of 23,340,595 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#1,257
of 3,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,836
of 335,765 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#20
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,340,595 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,235 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 335,765 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 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 50% of its contemporaries.