| Title |
Finding common ground to achieve a “good death”: family physicians working with substitute decision-makers of dying patients. A qualitative grounded theory study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Primary Care, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2296-14-14 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Amy Tan, Donna Manca |
| Abstract |
Substitute decision-makers are integral to the care of dying patients and make many healthcare decisions for patients. Unfortunately, conflict between physicians and surrogate decision-makers is not uncommon in end-of-life care and this could contribute to a "bad death" experience for the patient and family. We aim to describe Canadian family physicians' experiences of conflict with substitute decision-makers of dying patients to identify factors that may facilitate or hinder the end-of-life decision-making process. This insight will help determine how to best manage these complex situations, ultimately improving the overall care of dying patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 31% |
| Indonesia | 1 | 8% |
| Comoros | 1 | 8% |
| Canada | 1 | 8% |
| Georgia | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 5 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 100% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| South Africa | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 96 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 13 | 13% |
| Researcher | 13 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 12% |
| Other | 21 | 21% |
| Unknown | 16 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 32% |
| Social Sciences | 16 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 16% |
| Psychology | 9 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 8% |
| Unknown | 17 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 04 December 2022.
All research outputs
#1,679,990
of 25,494,370 outputs
Outputs from BMC Primary Care
#163
of 2,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,236
of 287,282 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Primary Care
#1
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,494,370 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,379 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 287,282 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.