| Title |
Using Geriatric Assessment Strategies to Lead End-of-Life Care Discussions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Oncology Reports, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11912-017-0631-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ashley Baronner, Amy MacKenzie |
| Abstract |
End-of-life discussions with geriatric oncology patients are a vital part of the comprehensive care of the senior adult patient. Developing a roadmap for these conversations can be challenging. Patients and caregivers may have expectations that are not concordant with what is reasonably achievable if the patient is frail. Measuring baseline cognition, nutritional status, and physical function and discussing goals of care are all essential pieces of information that can be obtained through a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA). Objective findings from the CGA can be crucial in developing end-of-life care plans that reflect both the patient's health status and personal values. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 20% |
| Comoros | 1 | 20% |
| Brazil | 1 | 20% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 40% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 37 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Researcher | 3 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 19% |
| Unknown | 12 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 41% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 16% |
| Psychology | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 14 | 38% |
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 27 October 2017.
All research outputs
#13,056,998
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from Current Oncology Reports
#449
of 891 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,397
of 322,942 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Oncology Reports
#3
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 891 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 322,942 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.