↓ Skip to main content

A review of paper-based advance care planning aids

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Palliative Care, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
Title
A review of paper-based advance care planning aids
Published in
BMC Palliative Care, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12904-018-0298-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

John F. P. Bridges, Thomas Lynch, Anne L. R. Schuster, Norah L. Crossnohere, Katherine Clegg Smith, Rebecca A. Aslakson

Abstract

Advance care planning (ACP) aids can help prepare patients, family members, and physicians for in-the-moment medical decision-making. We wished to describe the content and approach of paper-based ACP aids in order to characterize existing aids and inform the development of a new ACP aid. Paper-based ACP aids were identified through an environmental scan and screened for eligibility. ACP conceptual frameworks and data were gathered via stakeholder engagement and used to inform the coding framework that two investigators used to independently code each aid. A directed content analysis was conducted on these eligible aids. Aids were categorized through a deliberative process with an investigator abstracting general information for each aid. Fifteen aids met the eligibility criteria. They ranged in length from 6 to 78 pages with the average aid written at an eighth-grade reading level. The content analysis revealed that many aids encouraged choosing a surrogate decision maker and informed users about legal medical documents. Fewer than half of the aids facilitated patient clarification of values regarding quality of life issues. The authors identified and termed the following three categories of aids: informative; semi-action oriented; and action-oriented. It was often unclear whether patients contributed to the development or testing of the ACP aids reviewed. Most existing paper-based ACP aids address legal matters such as completing an advance directive. Only a minority elicited patient values and it was unclear whether any were developed in partnership with patients. Future development of ACP aids should account for patient preferences with a goal of supporting in-the-moment medical decision-making.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 20%
Student > Master 5 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Researcher 4 10%
Other 3 8%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 9 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 13%
Social Sciences 3 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Engineering 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 13 33%
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 03 April 2018.
All research outputs
#5,717,695
of 23,031,582 outputs
Outputs from BMC Palliative Care
#643
of 1,257 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,744
of 330,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Palliative Care
#42
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,031,582 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th 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 is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 330,033 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.