↓ Skip to main content

Understanding patient needs without understanding the patient: the need for complementary use of professional interpreters in end-of-life care

Overview of attention for article published in Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
Title
Understanding patient needs without understanding the patient: the need for complementary use of professional interpreters in end-of-life care
Published in
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, April 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11019-017-9769-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Demi Krystallidou, Ignaas Devisch, Dominique Van de Velde, Peter Pype

Abstract

High-quality doctor-patient communication in end-of-life care results in better quality of life for patients. In linguistically and culturally diverse societies, language discordant consultations become daily practice, leading to difficulties in eliciting patient preferences toward end-of-life care. Although family members invariably act as informal interpreters, this may cause some ethical dilemmas. We present a case of a palliative patient whose son acted as an interpreter. This case generated a triple- layered ethical dilemma: (i) how to safeguard patient autonomy against paternalistic interventions by family members, (ii) how to respect the relational context in which patient autonomy can be realized, and (iii) how to respect the ethno-cultural values of the patient and his family. These issues are being discussed and reflected upon within the framework shared decision making involving informal- and professional interpreters. The complementary use of professional interpreters next to family members acting as informal interpreters is recommended.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 64 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 16%
Student > Master 8 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Researcher 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 25 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 13 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 16%
Social Sciences 5 8%
Psychology 3 5%
Philosophy 2 3%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 26 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 November 2017.
All research outputs
#7,524,541
of 22,963,381 outputs
Outputs from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#214
of 594 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,565
of 308,920 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#4
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,963,381 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 594 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 308,920 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.