↓ Skip to main content

A Review of the Construct of Demoralization

Overview of attention for article published in American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine®, October 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 (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
82 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
126 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
A Review of the Construct of Demoralization
Published in
American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine®, October 2014
DOI 10.1177/1049909114553461
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sophie Robinson, David W. Kissane, Joanne Brooker, Susan Burney

Abstract

Demoralization has been the subject of discussion in relation to end-of-life care. It is characterized by hopelessness and helplessness due to a loss of purpose and meaning. The purpose of this review was to consolidate the conceptual understanding of demoralization and argue for its existence as a psychiatric syndrome. The history of the construct is explored, including the nature of existential distress and related psychological conditions that precipitate demoralization. Recent definitions of demoralization are described and differentiated from similar constructs. Future directions are highlighted, specifically in relation to the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of demoralization in palliative care. Overall, demoralization is a clinically useful construct for those facing existential threat, guiding the clinician toward efforts to restore morale, meaning, and purpose.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 125 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 13%
Student > Master 15 12%
Librarian 14 11%
Researcher 11 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 6%
Other 25 20%
Unknown 36 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 29%
Psychology 21 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 10%
Neuroscience 6 5%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Other 8 6%
Unknown 36 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 26 January 2021.
All research outputs
#2,654,885
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine®
#129
of 1,736 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,405
of 267,623 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine®
#2
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 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 1,736 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 267,623 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.