↓ Skip to main content

Health care professionals’ perceptions of factors influencing the process of identifying patients for serious illness conversations: A qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in Palliative Medicine, June 2022
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)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
21 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 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
Health care professionals’ perceptions of factors influencing the process of identifying patients for serious illness conversations: A qualitative study
Published in
Palliative Medicine, June 2022
DOI 10.1177/02692163221102266
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sofia Morberg Jämterud, Anna Sandgren

Abstract

The Serious Illness Care Programme enables patients to receive care that is in accordance with their priorities. However, despite clarity about palliative care needs, many barriers to and difficulties in identifying patients for serious illness conversations remain. To explore healthcare professionals' perceptions about factors influencing the process of identifying patients for serious illness conversations. Qualitative design. A thematic analysis of observations and semi-structured interviews was used. Twelve observations at team meetings in which physicians and nurses discussed the process of identifying the patients for serious illness conversations were conducted at eight different clinics in two hospitals. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with three physicians and two nurses from five clinics. Identifying the right patient and doing so at the right time were key to identifying patients for serious illness conversations. The continuity of relations and continuity over time could facilitate the identification process, while attitudes towards death and its relation to hope could hinder the process. The process of identifying patients for serious illness conversations is complex and may not be captured only by generic tools such as the surprise question. It is crucial to address existential and ethical obstacles that can hinder the identification of patients for serious illness conversations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 19%
Researcher 2 13%
Librarian 1 6%
Student > Master 1 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 4 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 19%
Computer Science 1 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 6%
Unknown 7 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 15 September 2022.
All research outputs
#2,658,742
of 24,935,186 outputs
Outputs from Palliative Medicine
#1,002
of 2,110 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,231
of 434,315 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Palliative Medicine
#19
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,935,186 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 2,110 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 434,315 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 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.