↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
60 news outlets
twitter
33 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user
guideline
1 clinical guideline source

Readers on

mendeley
267 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.
Article details
Title
Not "just" an intravenous line: Consumer perspectives on peripheral intravenous cannulation (PIVC). An international cross-sectional survey of 25 countries
Published in
PLOS ONE, February 2018
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0193436
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Peripheral intravascular cannula/catheter (PIVC) insertion is a common invasive procedure, but PIVC failure before the end of therapy is unacceptably high. As PIVC failure disrupts treatment and reinsertion can be distressing for the patient, prevention of PIVC failure is an important patient outcome. Consumer participation in PIVC care to prevent failure is an untapped resource. This study aimed to understand consumers' PIVC experience; establish aspects of PIVC insertion and care relevant to them; and to compare experiences of adult consumers to adult carers of a child. An international, web-based, cross-sectional survey was distributed via social media inviting adult consumers and adult carers of a child under 18 years who had experienced having a PIVC in the last five years (one survey each for adults and adult carers) to complete a 10-item survey. As such, sampling bias is a limitation and results should be carefully considered in light of this. There were 712 respondents from 25 countries, mainly female (87.1%) and adults (80%). A little over 50% of adults described insertion as moderately painful or worse, with level of insertion difficulty (0-10 scale) identified as moderate (median 4, IQR 1, 7). Adult carers reported significantly more pain during insertion and insertion difficulty (both p < 0.001). Rates of first insertion attempt failure were higher in children compared with adults (89/139 [64%] vs 221/554 [40%]; p < 0.001), and 23% of children required ≥ 4 attempts, compared with 9% of adults (p < 0.0001). Three themes from open-ended question emerged: Significance of safe and consistent PIVC care; Importance of staff training and competence; and Value of communication. The PIVC experience can be painful, stressful and frustrating for consumers. Priorities for clinicians and policy makers should include use of pain relief as standard practice to reduce the pain associated with PIVC insertion and developing strategies to increase first PIVC insertion attempt success particularly for children and older consumers.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 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 267 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 267 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 37 14%
Researcher 27 10%
Student > Master 24 9%
Other 19 7%
Student > Postgraduate 15 6%
Other 51 19%
Unknown 94 35%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 90 34%
Medicine and Dentistry 34 13%
Engineering 10 4%
Unspecified 7 3%
Psychology 5 2%
Other 22 8%
Unknown 99 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 501. 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 08 May 2024.
All research outputs
#65,534
of 34,307,719 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#1,054
of 224,232 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,320
of 372,819 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#22
of 3,715 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,307,719 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 224,232 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 372,819 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,715 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.