↓ Skip to main content

Does Diagnosis Make a Difference? Comparing Hospice Care Satisfaction in Matched Cohorts of Heart Failure and Cancer Caregivers

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Palliative Medicine, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
7 X users

Readers on

mendeley
61 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
Does Diagnosis Make a Difference? Comparing Hospice Care Satisfaction in Matched Cohorts of Heart Failure and Cancer Caregivers
Published in
Journal of Palliative Medicine, August 2015
DOI 10.1089/jpm.2015.0078
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Half of heart failure patients will die within five years of diagnosis, making them an ideal population for hospice to reach. Yet hospice originated in oncology, and problems have been noted with the enrollment of heart failure patients. Whether caregiver satisfaction, a key quality measure in hospice, differs between heart failure and cancer caregivers is unknown. We aimed to determine whether diagnosis makes a difference in satisfaction with hospice care in matched cohorts of heart failure caregivers and cancer caregivers. This was a national cohort study, using caregiver responses to the Family Evaluation of Hospice Care (FEHC) survey. Heart failure and cancer caregivers were matched via propensity scoring. The relationship between diagnosis and caregiver satisfaction was examined across the domains of symptom management, emotional support, caregiver teaching, coordination of care, and global satisfaction, both before and after matching via logistic regression. One-to-one matching with calipers yielded 7730 matched pairs out of an original sample of 8175 heart failure caregivers and 24,972 cancer caregivers. Significant differences were found in caregiver teaching, emotional support, coordination of care, and global satisfaction prior to matching, but the effect sizes were small. All differences disappeared after matching. High rates of dissatisfaction with caregiver teaching (42%) and emotional support (30%) were found in both cohorts. The diagnosis of heart failure, in and of itself, does not appear to make a difference in informal caregiver satisfaction with hospice care. Hospice provides high-quality care for patients, but improvements are needed in caring for the caregiver.

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.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 59 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 21%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Researcher 6 10%
Other 4 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Other 11 18%
Unknown 17 28%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 18 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 23%
Psychology 4 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 18 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 14 June 2017.
All research outputs
#6,188,558
of 32,332,113 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Palliative Medicine
#924
of 3,656 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,117
of 292,247 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Palliative Medicine
#6
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,332,113 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,656 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 292,247 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.