| Title |
Oncology nurses’ perceptions of obstacles and role at the end-of-life care: cross sectional survey
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Palliative Care, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12904-017-0257-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Aurelija Blaževičienė, Jamesetta A. Newland, Vilija Čivinskienė, Renea L. Beckstrand |
| Abstract |
Major obstacles exist in the care of patients at the end of life: lack of time, poor or inadequate communication, and lack of knowledge in providing care. Three possible nursing roles in care decision-making were investigated: Information Broker, Supporter, and Advocate. The purpose of this study was to examine obstacles faced by oncology nurses in providing end-of-life (EOL) care and to examine roles of nurses in providing care. A descriptive, cross-sectional, correlational design was applied. The study was conducted at two major University Hospitals of Oncology in Lithuania that have a combined total of 2365 beds. The study sample consisted of 239 oncology registered nurses. Data collection tool included a questionnaire about assessment of obstacles and supportive behaviors, nursing roles, and socio-demographic characteristics. The two items perceived by respondents as the most intense obstacles to providing EOL care were The nurse's opinion on immediate patient care is not welcome, valued or discussed and. Family has no access to psychological help after being informed about the patient's diagnosis. The majority of respondents self-assigned the role of Supporter. Major obstacles in providing care included the nurse's opinion that immediate patient care was not valued, lack of nursing knowledge on how to treat the patient's grieving family, and physicians who avoided conversations with the patient and family members about diagnoses and prospects. In EOL care nurses most frequently acted as Supporters and less frequently as Advocates. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 108 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 13% |
| Researcher | 6 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 19 | 18% |
| Unknown | 41 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 42 | 39% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 11% |
| Psychology | 4 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 4% |
| Unknown | 41 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 December 2017.
All research outputs
#4,027,895
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from BMC Palliative Care
#531
of 1,257 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,310
of 440,404 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Palliative Care
#24
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,257 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 440,404 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.