↓ Skip to main content

Failure of the Current Advance Care Planning Paradigm: Advocating for a Communications-Based Approach

Overview of attention for article published in HEC Forum, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
63 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
Failure of the Current Advance Care Planning Paradigm: Advocating for a Communications-Based Approach
Published in
HEC Forum, July 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10730-016-9305-0
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The purpose of advance care planning (ACP) is to allow an individual to maintain autonomy in end-of-life (EOL) medical decision-making even when incapacitated by disease or terminal illness. The intersection of EOL medical technology, ethics of EOL care, and state and federal law has driven the development of the legal framework for advance directives (ADs). However, from an ethical perspective the current legal framework is inadequate to make ADs an effective EOL planning tool. One response to this flawed AD process has been the development of Physician Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (POLST). POLST has been described as a paradigm shift to address the inadequacies of ADs. However, POLST has failed to bridge the gap between patients and their autonomous, preferred EOL care decisions. Analysis of ADs and POLST reveals that future policy should focus on a communications-based approach to ACP that emphasizes ongoing interactions between healthcare providers and patients to optimize EOL medical care to the individual patient.

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 4 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 63 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 %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 21%
Other 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 20 32%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Psychology 2 3%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 21 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 25 August 2016.
All research outputs
#12,668,425
of 22,881,154 outputs
Outputs from HEC Forum
#87
of 184 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#174,997
of 354,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age from HEC Forum
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,154 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 184 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 354,855 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them