↓ Skip to main content

End-of-life care pathways for improving outcomes in caring for the dying.

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2010
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 (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
94 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
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 care pathways for improving outcomes in caring for the dying.
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2010
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008006.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chan R, Webster J, Chan, Raymond, Webster, Joan

Abstract

In many clinical areas, integrated care pathways are utilised as structured multidisciplinary care plans which detail essential steps in caring for patients with specific clinical problems. Particularly, care pathways for the dying have been developed as a model to improve the end-of-life care of all patients. They aim to ensure that the most appropriate management occurs at the most appropriate time and that it is provided by the most appropriate health professional. Clinical pathways for end-of-life care management are used widely around the world and have been regarded as the gold standard. Therefore, there is a significant need for clinicians to be informed about the utilisation of end-of-life care pathways with a systematic review.

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 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 5%
United States 2 3%
India 1 2%
Unknown 56 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Student > Master 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Other 5 8%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 12 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 31%
Social Sciences 9 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 15%
Psychology 3 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 15 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 November 2013.
All research outputs
#1,879,429
of 22,711,645 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,179
of 12,313 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,352
of 163,847 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#25
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,711,645 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,313 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 163,847 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 112 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.