↓ Skip to main content

Balancing professional tension and deciding upon the status of death: Making end-of-life decisions in intensive care units

Overview of attention for article published in Health Psychology Open, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
Balancing professional tension and deciding upon the status of death: Making end-of-life decisions in intensive care units
Published in
Health Psychology Open, January 2016
DOI 10.1177/2055102915622928
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

This study investigated how intensivists make decisions regarding withholding and withdrawing treatment for patients at the end of their lives. This involved completing in-depth interviews from two sites of the South of England, United Kingdom by twelve intensivists. The data collected by these intensivists were analysed using thematic analysis. This resulted in the identification of three themes: intensivists' role, treatment effectiveness, and patients' best interest. Transcending these were two overarching themes relating to the balance between quantity and quality of life, and the intensivists' sense of responsibility versus burden. The results are considered in terms of making sense of death and the role of beliefs in the decision-making process.

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 3 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 35 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 Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 34 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Student > Master 4 11%
Other 3 9%
Researcher 3 9%
Other 8 23%
Unknown 8 23%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 31%
Psychology 6 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 14%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 8 23%
Attention Score in Context

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 21 November 2018.
All research outputs
#21,619,379
of 32,986,848 outputs
Outputs from Health Psychology Open
#132
of 252 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#262,736
of 441,599 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Psychology Open
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,986,848 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 252 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.8. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 441,599 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.