↓ Skip to main content

Supportive and palliative care for lung cancer patients

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Thoracic Disease, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 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
Supportive and palliative care for lung cancer patients
Published in
Journal of Thoracic Disease, October 2013
DOI 10.3978/j.issn.2072-1439.2013.10.05
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patsy Yates, Penelope Schofield, Isabella Zhao, David Currow

Abstract

Lung cancer patients face poor survival and experience co-occurring chronic physical and psychological symptoms. These symptoms can result in significant burden, impaired physical and social function and poor quality of life. This paper provides a review of evidence based interventions that support best practice supportive and palliative care for patients with lung cancer. Specifically, interventions to manage dyspnoea, one of the most common symptoms experienced by this group, are discussed to illustrate the emerging evidence base in the field. The evidence base for the pharmacological management of dyspnoea report systemic opioids have the best available evidence to support their use. In particular, the evidence strongly supports systemic morphine preferably initiated and continued as a once daily sustained release preparation. Evidence supporting the use of a range of other adjunctive non-pharmacological interventions in managing the symptom is also emerging. Interventions to improve breathing efficiency that have been reported to be effective include pursed lip breathing, diaphragmatic breathing, positioning and pacing techniques. Psychosocial interventions seeking to reduce anxiety and distress can also improve the management of breathlessness although further studies are needed. In addition, evidence reviews have concluded that case management approaches and nurse led follow-up programs are effective in reducing breathlessness and psychological distress, providing a useful model for supporting implementation of evidence based symptom management strategies. Optimal outcomes from supportive and palliative care interventions thus require a multi-level approach, involving interventions at the patient, health professional and health service level.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 73 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 19%
Student > Postgraduate 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Other 5 7%
Other 14 19%
Unknown 18 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Psychology 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 23 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 27 November 2013.
All research outputs
#20,660,571
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Thoracic Disease
#1,674
of 2,501 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#166,064
of 219,859 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Thoracic Disease
#18
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,501 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 219,859 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.