| Title |
What are the barriers faced by medical oncologists in initiating discussion of palliative care? A qualitative study in Flanders, Belgium
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Supportive Care in Cancer, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00520-016-3211-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
M. Horlait, K. Chambaere, K. Pardon, L. Deliens, S. Van Belle |
| Abstract |
Before referring patients to a palliative care service, oncologists need to inform them about disease stage and discuss prognosis, treatment options and possible advantages of specialized palliative care (SPC). They often find this a complex and emotionally difficult task. As a result, they may refer their patients to SPC too late in the disease course or even not at all. This study reports findings from interviews with Belgian medical oncologists identifying the barriers they experience to introduce palliative care to their patients with advanced cancer. The interviews were semi-structured with open-ended questions and were supported by a topic list. The transcripts were analysed during an iterative process using the grounded theory principles of open and axial coding until a final coding framework was reached. The study identified seven heterogeneous categories of barriers which discourage oncologists from discussing palliative care: oncologist-related barriers, patient-related barriers, family-related barriers, barriers relating to the physician referring the patient to the medical oncologist, barriers relating to disease or treatment, institutional/organizational barriers and societal/policy barriers. These categories are further refined into subcategories. These findings provide an explanation for the possible reasons why medical oncologists feel hampered in initiating palliative care and consequently discuss it rather late in the disease trajectory. The exploration and description of these barriers may serve as a starting point for revising the medical education of oncologists. They are also a reminder to hospital management and policy makers to be aware of the impact of these barriers on the daily practice of oncology. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| New Zealand | 1 | 33% |
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 84 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 20% |
| Researcher | 12 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 10% |
| Other | 8 | 10% |
| Other | 10 | 12% |
| Unknown | 20 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 18% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 11% |
| Psychology | 8 | 10% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 27 | 32% |
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 07 October 2017.
All research outputs
#14,845,697
of 22,862,742 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#2,941
of 4,589 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,880
of 269,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#61
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,862,742 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,589 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 269,982 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 99 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.