↓ Skip to main content

Team Leadership and Cancer End-of-Life Decision Making

Overview of attention for article published in JCO Oncology Practice, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
Team Leadership and Cancer End-of-Life Decision Making
Published in
JCO Oncology Practice, October 2016
DOI 10.1200/jop.2016.013862
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julie M Waldfogel, Dena J Battle, Michael Rosen, Louise Knight, Catherine B Saiki, Suzanne A Nesbit, Rhonda S Cooper, Ilene S Browner, Laura H Hoofring, Lynn S Billing, Sydney M Dy

Abstract

End-of-life decision making in cancer can be a complicated process. Patients and families encounter multiple providers throughout their cancer care. When the efforts of these providers are not well coordinated in teams, opportunities for high-quality, longitudinal goals of care discussions can be missed. This article reviews the case of a 55-year-old man with lung cancer, illustrating the barriers and missed opportunities for end-of-life decision making in his care through the lens of team leadership, a key principle in the science of teams. The challenges demonstrated in this case reflect the importance of the four functions of team leadership: information search and structuring, information use in problem solving, managing personnel resources, and managing material resources. Engaging in shared leadership of these four functions can help care providers improve their interactions with patients and families concerning end-of-life care decision making. This shared leadership can also produce a cohesive care plan that benefits from the expertise of the range of available providers while reflecting patient needs and preferences. Clinicians and researchers should consider the roles of team leadership functions and shared leadership in improving patient care when developing and studying models of cancer care delivery.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Student > Master 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Researcher 6 11%
Librarian 3 6%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 15 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 14 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 6%
Psychology 3 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 21 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 28 September 2016.
All research outputs
#16,047,334
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from JCO Oncology Practice
#2,349
of 2,954 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,971
of 318,629 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JCO Oncology Practice
#68
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,954 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.1. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 318,629 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.