| Title |
Age-based disparities in end-of-life decisions in Belgium: a population-based death certificate survey
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, June 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2458-12-447 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kenneth Chambaere, Judith A C Rietjens, Tinne Smets, Johan Bilsen, Reginald Deschepper, H Roeline W Pasman, Luc Deliens |
| Abstract |
A growing body of scientific research is suggesting that end-of-life care and decision making may differ between age groups and that elderly patients may be the most vulnerable to exclusion of due care at the end of life. This study investigates age-related disparities in the rate of end-of-life decisions with a possible or certain life shortening effect (ELDs) and in the preceding decision making process in Flanders, Belgium in 2007, where euthanasia was legalised in 2002. Comparing with data from an identical survey in 1998 we also study the plausibility of the 'slippery slope' hypothesis which predicts a rise in the rate of administration of life ending drugs without patient request, especially among elderly patients, in countries where euthanasia is legal. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 1% |
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| India | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 76 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 15% |
| Researcher | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 9% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 13 | 16% |
| Unknown | 20 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 30% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 10% |
| Psychology | 8 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Unknown | 22 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 19 June 2012.
All research outputs
#18,308,895
of 22,668,244 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#12,755
of 14,746 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,543
of 164,521 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#232
of 270 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,668,244 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,746 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 164,521 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 270 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.