We sought to describe practice patterns, attitudes, and barriers to the integration of palliative care services by gynecologic oncologists.
Members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology were electronically surveyed regarding their practice of incorporating palliative care services and to identify barriers for consultation. Descriptive statistics were used, and two-sample z-tests of proportions were performed to compare responses to related questions.
Of the 145 respondents, 71% were attending physicians and 58% worked at an academic medical center. The vast majority (92%) had palliative care services available for consultation at their hospital; 48% thought that palliative care services were appropriately used, 51% thought they were underused, and 1% thought they were overused. Thirty percent of respondents thought that palliative care services should be incorporated at first recurrence, whereas 42% thought palliative care should be incorporated when prognosis for life expectancy is ≤ 6 months. Most participants (75%) responded that palliative care consultation is reasonable for symptom control at any stage of disease. Respondents were most likely to consult palliative care services for pain control (53%) and other symptoms (63%). Eighty-three percent of respondents thought that communicating prognosis is the primary team's responsibility, whereas the responsibilities for pain and symptom control, resuscitation status, and goals of care discussions were split between the primary team only and both teams. The main barrier for consulting palliative care services was the concern that patients and families would feel abandoned by the primary oncologist (73%). Ninety-seven percent of respondents answered that palliative care services are useful to improve patient care.
The majority of gynecologic oncologists perceived palliative care as a useful collaboration that is underused. Fear of perceived abandonment by the patient and family members was identified as a significant barrier to palliative care consult.
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 22 September 2017.
All research outputs
#7,068,015
of 27,788,586 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Oncology Practice
#516
of 987 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,477
of 334,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Oncology Practice
#8
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,788,586 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 987 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
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 334,060 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.
