↓ Skip to main content

Benefits and resource implications of family meetings for hospitalized palliative care patients: research protocol

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Palliative Care, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
156 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
Benefits and resource implications of family meetings for hospitalized palliative care patients: research protocol
Published in
BMC Palliative Care, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12904-015-0071-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter L. Hudson, Afaf Girgis, Geoffrey K. Mitchell, Jenny Philip, Deborah Parker, David Currow, Danny Liew, Kristina Thomas, Brian Le, Juli Moran, Caroline Brand

Abstract

Palliative care focuses on supporting patients diagnosed with advanced, incurable disease; it is 'family centered', with the patient and their family (the unit of care) being core to all its endeavours. However, approximately 30-50 % of carers experience psychological distress which is typically under recognised and consequently not addressed. Family meetings (FM) are recommended as a means whereby health professionals, together with family carers and patients discuss psychosocial issues and plan care; however there is minimal empirical research to determine the net effect of these meetings and the resources required to implement them systematically. The aims of this study were to evaluate: (1) if family carers of hospitalised patients with advanced disease (referred to a specialist palliative care in-patient setting or palliative care consultancy service) who receive a FM report significantly lower psychological distress (primary outcome), fewer unmet needs, increased quality of life and feel more prepared for the caregiving role; (2) if patients who receive the FM experience appropriate quality of end-of-life care, as demonstrated by fewer hospital admissions, fewer emergency department presentations, fewer intensive care unit hours, less chemotherapy treatment (in last 30 days of life), and higher likelihood of death in the place of their choice and access to supportive care services; (3) the optimal time point to deliver FM and; (4) to determine the cost-benefit and resource implications of implementing FM meetings into routine practice. Cluster type trial design with two way randomization for aims 1-3 and health economic modeling and qualitative interviews with health for professionals for aim 4. The research will determine whether FMs have positive practical and psychological impacts on the family, impacts on health service usage, and financial benefits to the health care sector. This study will also provide clear guidance on appropriate timing in the disease/care trajectory to provide a family meeting. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12615000200583 .

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 156 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 2 1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 153 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 13%
Student > Bachelor 18 12%
Student > Master 16 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 10%
Other 28 18%
Unknown 38 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 43 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 35 22%
Psychology 15 10%
Social Sciences 8 5%
Arts and Humanities 2 1%
Other 10 6%
Unknown 43 28%
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 09 July 2016.
All research outputs
#14,558,031
of 23,314,015 outputs
Outputs from BMC Palliative Care
#1,020
of 1,269 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,590
of 391,265 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Palliative Care
#27
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,314,015 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,269 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 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 391,265 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.