↓ Skip to main content

A good resource for parents, but will clinicians use it?: Evaluation of a resource for paediatric end-of-life decision making

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Palliative Care, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
Title
A good resource for parents, but will clinicians use it?: Evaluation of a resource for paediatric end-of-life decision making
Published in
BMC Palliative Care, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12904-016-0177-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Clare Delany, Vicki Xafis, Lynn Gillam, Jo-anne Hughson, Jenny Hynson, Dominic Wilkinson

Abstract

Communication with parents about end-of-life care and decisions is a difficult and sensitive process. The objective of the present study was to ascertain clinicians' views on the acceptability and usefulness of a handbook and web-based resource (Caring Decisions) that was designed as an aid for parents facing end-of-life decisions for their child. Qualitative interviews were conducted with a range of health professionals who provide care to children facing life-limiting conditions. Data analysis confirmed the acceptability and usefulness of the resource. Two major themes were revealed: 1. Family empowerment, with sub-themes Giving words and clarity, Conversation starter, 'I'm not alone in this', and A resource to take away, highlighted how the resource filled a gap by supporting and enabling families in a multitude of ways; 2. Not just for families, with sub-themes A guide for staff, When to give the resource?, How to give the resource and Who should give the resource?, explored the significant finding that participants viewed the resource as a valuable tool for themselves, but its presence also brought into relief potential gaps in communication processes around end-of-life care. The interview data indicated the positive reception and clear value and need for this type of resource. However, it is likely that successful resource uptake will be contingent on discussion and planning around dissemination and use within the health care team.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 79 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 20%
Researcher 9 11%
Other 7 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 22 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 18 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 19%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Psychology 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 27 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 July 2017.
All research outputs
#4,704,340
of 23,299,593 outputs
Outputs from BMC Palliative Care
#602
of 1,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,216
of 420,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Palliative Care
#13
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,299,593 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,268 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. 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 420,655 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.