↓ Skip to main content

Patients’ perceptions of palliative care quality in hospice inpatient care, hospice day care, palliative units in nursing homes, and home care: a cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Palliative Care, August 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 (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
263 Mendeley
Title
Patients’ perceptions of palliative care quality in hospice inpatient care, hospice day care, palliative units in nursing homes, and home care: a cross-sectional study
Published in
BMC Palliative Care, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12904-016-0152-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tuva Sandsdalen, Vigdis Abrahamsen Grøndahl, Reidun Hov, Sevald Høye, Ingrid Rystedt, Bodil Wilde-Larsson

Abstract

Patients' perceptions of care quality within and across settings are important for the further development of palliative care. The aim was to investigate patients' perceptions of palliative care quality within settings, including perceptions of care received and their subjective importance, and contrast palliative care quality across settings. A cross-sectional study including 191 patients in late palliative phase (73 % response rate) admitted to hospice inpatient care, hospice day care, palliative units in nursing homes, and home care was conducted, using the Quality from the Patients' Perspective instrument-palliative care (QPP-PC). QPP-PC comprises four dimensions and 12 factors; "medical-technical competence" (MT) (2 factors), "physical-technical conditions" (PT) (one factor), "identity-orientation approach" (ID) (4 factors), "sociocultural atmosphere" (SC) (5 factors), and three single items (S); medical care, personal hygiene and atmosphere. Data were analysed using paired-samples t-test and analysis of covariance while controlling for differences in patient characteristics. Patients' perceptions of care received within settings showed high scores for the factors and single items "honesty" (ID) and "atmosphere" (S) in all settings and low scores for "exhaustion" (MT) in three out of four settings. Patients' perceptions of importance scored high for "medical care" (S), "honesty" (ID), "respect and empathy" (ID) and "atmosphere" (S) in all settings. No aspects of care scored low in all settings. Importance scored higher than perceptions of care received, in particular for receiving information. Patients' perceptions of care across settings differed, with highest scores in hospice inpatient care for the dimensions; ID, SC, and "medical care" (S), the SC and "atmosphere" (S) for hospice day care, and "medical care" (S) for palliative units in nursing homes. There were no differences in subjective importance across settings. Strengths of services related to identity-orientation approach and a pleasant and safe atmosphere. Key areas for improvement related to receiving information. Perceptions of subjective importance did not differ across settings, but perceptions of care received scored higher in more care areas for hospice inpatient care, than in other settings. Further studies are needed to support these findings, to investigate why perceptions of care differ across settings and to highlight what can be learned from settings receiving high scores.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 263 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 261 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 42 16%
Student > Master 37 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 7%
Researcher 18 7%
Other 48 18%
Unknown 78 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 78 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 48 18%
Psychology 12 5%
Social Sciences 7 3%
Unspecified 5 2%
Other 29 11%
Unknown 84 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 07 October 2019.
All research outputs
#2,440,293
of 23,567,572 outputs
Outputs from BMC Palliative Care
#270
of 1,294 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,800
of 343,471 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Palliative Care
#5
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,567,572 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 1,294 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 343,471 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.