| Title |
Exploring symptom meaning: perspectives of palliative care physicians
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Supportive Care in Cancer, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00520-018-4126-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Celina F. Estacio, Phyllis N. Butow, Melanie R. Lovell, Skye T. Dong, Josephine M. Clayton |
| Abstract |
Understanding patients' symptom experiences is essential to providing effective clinical care. The discussion between patients and physicians of symptom meaning and its significance, however, is ill understood. To investigate palliative care physicians' understanding of symptom meaning, and their experiences of and attitudes towards the discussion of symptom meaning with patients. Semi-structured interviews were conducted (N = 17) across Sydney, Australia. Transcripts were analysed using framework analysis. Six key themes were identified: (1) definitions of symptom meaning (causal meanings, functional impact, existential impact, and cascade of meanings); (2) meanings are personal (demographic, culture, spiritual, and family differences); (3) eliciting meanings requires subtlety and trust (following the patient's cues); discussing meaning can be (4) hard (for the patient and health professional); (5) therapeutic (assuaging fears, feeling listened to and valued, increased sense of control, and reduced symptom distress); and (6) enhances clinicians' practice and work satisfaction (provision of more tailored care, reassurance through the provision of information, and strengthening of doctor-patient relationship). Exploring symptom meaning can serve to provide information, alleviate anxiety, and facilitate individualised care, but only when patients present cues or are open to discuss symptom-related concerns. However, various barriers hinder such dialogue in consultations. Greater awareness of symptom meaning and its influence may facilitate physicians exploring symptom meaning more with patients in the future. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 17% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 8% |
| Sweden | 1 | 8% |
| Antigua and Barbuda | 1 | 8% |
| Australia | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 83% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 79 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 10% |
| Researcher | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 12 | 15% |
| Unknown | 26 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 20 | 25% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 16% |
| Psychology | 6 | 8% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Unknown | 29 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 22 March 2019.
All research outputs
#4,719,257
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#1,156
of 4,643 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,501
of 331,872 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#41
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,643 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 done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 331,872 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 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 58% of its contemporaries.