↓ Skip to main content

Vitamin “G”arden: a qualitative study exploring perception/s of horticultural therapy on a palliative care ward

Overview of attention for article published in Supportive Care in Cancer, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
117 Mendeley
Title
Vitamin “G”arden: a qualitative study exploring perception/s of horticultural therapy on a palliative care ward
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00520-017-3978-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eva Katharina Masel, Helena Trinczek, Feroniki Adamidis, Sophie Schur, Matthias Unseld, Anna Kitta, Kathrin Kirchheiner, Birgit Steininger, Karoline Meixner-Katzmann, Herbert Hans Watzke

Abstract

In a palliative care setting, the preservation of quality of life is of particular importance. Horticultural therapy (HT) is reported as an excellent way to improve physical as well as psychological well-being, reduce levels of anxiety and depression, and promote social interaction. The use of horticultural interventions in palliative care has not yet been explored. The aim of this study was to explore the effects of HT in patients and team members on a palliative care ward. This study was based on a qualitative methodology, comprising 20 semistructured interviews with 15 advanced cancer patients participating in HT and with 5 members of the palliative care team. Interviews were analyzed using NVivo 10 software based on thematic analysis. The results revealed the following themes: (1) well-being, (2) variation of clinical routine, (3) creation, and (4) building relationships. Patients experienced positive stimulation through HT, were distracted from daily clinical routines, enjoyed creative work, and were able to build relationships with other patients. HT was also welcomed by the members of the palliative care team. Thirty-six percent of the patients did not meet the inclusion criteria, and 45% could not participate in the second or third HT session. Our study showed that the availability of HT was highly appreciated by the patients as well as by the palliative care team. Nevertheless, the dropout rate was high, and therefore, it might be more feasible to integrate green spaces into palliative care wards.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 117 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 15%
Researcher 15 13%
Student > Bachelor 14 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 11%
Other 5 4%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 38 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 19 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 13%
Psychology 10 9%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 20 17%
Unknown 44 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 02 February 2019.
All research outputs
#5,783,504
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#1,349
of 4,641 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,861
of 440,404 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#43
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,641 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.