↓ Skip to main content

The Voice Is As Mighty As the Pen: Integrating Conversations into Advance Care Planning

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
Title
The Voice Is As Mighty As the Pen: Integrating Conversations into Advance Care Planning
Published in
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11673-018-9848-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kunal Bailoor, Leslie H. Kamil, Ed Goldman, Laura M. Napiewocki, Denise Winiarski, Christian J. Vercler, Andrew G. Shuman

Abstract

Advance care planning allows patients to articulate preferences for their medical treatment, lifestyle, and surrogate decision-makers in order to anticipate and mitigate their potential loss of decision-making capacity. Written advance directives are often emphasized in this regard. While these directives contain important information, there are several barriers to consider: veracity and accuracy of surrogate decision-makers in making choices consistent with the substituted judgement standard, state-to-state variability in regulations, literacy issues, lack of access to legal resources, lack of understanding of medical options, and cultural disparities. Given these issues, it is vital to increase the use of patient and healthcare provider conversations as an advance care planning tool and to increase integration of such discourse into advance care planning policy as adjuncts and complements to written advance directives. This paper reviews current legislation about written advance directives and dissects how documentation of spoken interactions might be integrated and considered. We discuss specific institutional policy changes required to facilitate implementation. Finally, we explore the ethical issues surrounding the increased usage and recognition of clinician-patient conversations in advance care planning.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 13%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Professor 2 7%
Other 6 20%
Unknown 8 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 20%
Psychology 2 7%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Energy 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 9 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 30 March 2018.
All research outputs
#15,495,840
of 23,028,364 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#437
of 600 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#229,308
of 359,614 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#8
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,028,364 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 600 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 359,614 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.