↓ Skip to main content

End-of-life planning with frail patients attending general practice: an exploratory prospective cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, July 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 (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 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
End-of-life planning with frail patients attending general practice: an exploratory prospective cross-sectional study
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, July 2016
DOI 10.3399/bjgp16x686557
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eoin J Dunphy, Sarah C Conlon, Sarah A O’Brien, Emer Loughrey, Brendan J O’Shea

Abstract

End-of-life planning means decision making with patients, formulating and recording decisions regarding their end-of-life care. Although clearly linked with benefits including improved quality of life, reduced hospital admissions, and less aggressive medical care, it is still infrequently undertaken and is regarded as challenging by healthcare professionals. To ascertain the feasibility of improving the identification of patients at high risk of dying in general practice and the acceptability of providing patients identified with an end-of-life planning tool. Exploratory prospective cross-sectional study in four general practices. Patients at high risk of dying were identified during routine consulting by their GP, using the Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (SPICT). Patients identified were invited to participate, and provided with Think Ahead - an end-of-life planning tool, which has been used previously in general practice. Participants completed telephone surveys, assessing their response to Think Ahead, and the acceptability of the GP raising end-of-life issues during routine consulting. Provision of Think Ahead to a purposive sample of preterminal patients identified by GPs was feasible, acceptable to most patients, and somewhat effective in increasing discussion among families and in practice on end-of-life planning. The SPICT and Think Ahead tools were mostly acceptable, effective, and enabling of discussions on end-of-life care in general practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 100 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 12%
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Researcher 10 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Other 6 6%
Other 19 19%
Unknown 32 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 18%
Environmental Science 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 1%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 37 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 June 2017.
All research outputs
#5,091,209
of 24,619,469 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#1,919
of 4,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,661
of 370,899 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#42
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,619,469 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,578 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 370,899 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 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 53% of its contemporaries.