↓ Skip to main content

The Troubles of Telling

Overview of attention for article published in Qualitative Health Research, January 2014
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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
14 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
The Troubles of Telling
Published in
Qualitative Health Research, January 2014
DOI 10.1177/1049732313519709
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alex Broom, Emma Kirby, Phillip Good, Julia Wootton, Jon Adams

Abstract

Communication about palliative care represents one of the most difficult interpersonal aspects of medicine. Delivering the "terminal" diagnosis has traditionally been the focus of research, yet transitions to specialist palliative care are equally critical clinical moments. Here we focus on 20 medical specialists' strategies for engaging patients around referral to specialist palliative care. Our aim was to develop an understanding of the logics that underpin their communication strategies when negotiating this transition. We draw on qualitative interviews to explore their accounts of deciding whether and when to engage in referral discussions; the role of uncertainty and the need for hope in shaping communication; and their perceptions of how patient biographies might shape their approaches to, and communication about, the end of life. On the basis of our analysis, we argue that communication is embedded in social relations of hope, justice, and uncertainty, as well as being shaped by patient biographies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 52 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 19%
Researcher 9 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Other 11 21%
Unknown 4 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 12 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 23%
Social Sciences 10 19%
Psychology 6 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 8 15%
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 14 December 2015.
All research outputs
#2,391,089
of 22,741,406 outputs
Outputs from Qualitative Health Research
#231
of 1,830 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,168
of 307,315 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Qualitative Health Research
#4
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,741,406 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 1,830 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 307,315 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.