↓ Skip to main content

Helping lay carers of people with advanced cancer and their GPs to talk: an exploration of Australian users’ views of a simple carer health checklist

Overview of attention for article published in Health & Social Care in the Community, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Helping lay carers of people with advanced cancer and their GPs to talk: an exploration of Australian users’ views of a simple carer health checklist
Published in
Health & Social Care in the Community, December 2015
DOI 10.1111/hsc.12312
Pubmed ID
Authors

Letitia Burridge, Geoffrey Mitchell, Moyez Jiwa, Afaf Girgis

Abstract

The lay caregiving role is integral to advanced cancer care but places carers' health at risk. A supportive General Practitioner (GP) can help primary lay carers manage their health, if they disclose their concerns. A Needs Assessment Tool for Caregivers (NAT-C) was developed for carers to self-complete and use as the basis of a GP consultation, then tested in a randomised controlled trial. This paper reports a qualitative research study to determine the usefulness and acceptability of the NAT-C in the Australian primary care setting. Convenience samples of 11 carers and 5 GPs were interviewed between September 2010 and December 2011 regarding their experiences with and perceptions of the NAT-C. Open-ended questions were used, and the transcripts were analysed qualitatively to identify themes and patterns. Three major themes were identified: (a) Acceptability of the intervention; (b) Impact of the intervention on the GP-patient relationship; and (c) Place of the intervention in advanced cancer care. This simple checklist was acceptable to carers, although some were uncertain about the legitimacy of discussing their own needs with their GP. Carer-patients could not be certain whether a GP would be willing or equipped to conduct a NAT-C-based consultation. Such consultations were acceptable to most GPs, although some already used a holistic approach while others preferred brief symptom-based consultations. Although the NAT-C was acceptable to most carers and GPs, supportive consultations take time. This raises organisational issues to be addressed so carers can seek and benefit from their GP's support.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 65 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 22%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Other 5 8%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 15 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 17%
Psychology 11 17%
Social Sciences 8 12%
Unspecified 2 3%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 14 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 28 February 2017.
All research outputs
#15,738,224
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Health & Social Care in the Community
#1,419
of 2,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,216
of 396,496 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health & Social Care in the Community
#18
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,072 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 396,496 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 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.