↓ Skip to main content

Computer screening for palliative care needs in primary care: a mixed-methods study

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, March 2018
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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
30 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 Mendeley
Title
Computer screening for palliative care needs in primary care: a mixed-methods study
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, March 2018
DOI 10.3399/bjgp18x695729
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bruce Mason, Kirsty Boyd, John Steyn, Marilyn Kendall, Stella Macpherson, Scott A Murray

Abstract

Though the majority of people could benefit from palliative care before they die, most do not receive this approach, especially those with multimorbidity and frailty. GPs find it difficult to identify such patients. To refine and evaluate the utility of a computer application (AnticiPal) to help primary care teams screen their registered patients for people who could benefit from palliative care. A mixed-methods study of eight GP practices in Scotland, conducted in 2016-2017. After a search development cycle the authors adopted a mixed-methods approach, combining analysis of the number of people identified by the search with qualitative observations of the computer search as used by primary care teams, and interviews with professionals and patients. The search identified 0.8% of 62 708 registered patients. A total of 27 multidisciplinary meetings were observed, and eight GPs and 10 patients were interviewed. GPs thought the search identified many unrecognised patients with advanced multimorbidity and frailty, but were concerned about workload implications of assessment and care planning. Patients and carers endorsed the value of proactive identification of people with advanced illness. GP practices can use computer searching to generate lists of patients for review and care planning. The challenges of starting a conversation about the future remain. However, most patients regard key components of palliative care (proactive planning, including sharing information with urgent care services) as important. Screening for people with deteriorating health at risk from unplanned care is a current focus for quality improvement and should not be limited by labelling it solely as 'palliative care'.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 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 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 106 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 19%
Researcher 19 18%
Other 8 8%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 17 16%
Unknown 27 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 15%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Psychology 5 5%
Computer Science 4 4%
Other 12 11%
Unknown 26 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 05 April 2021.
All research outputs
#1,311,576
of 24,027,644 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#641
of 4,486 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,074
of 333,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#17
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,027,644 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,486 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 333,851 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.