↓ Skip to main content

Patient reported outcome measures of quality of end-of-life care: A systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Maturitas, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
167 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.
Title
Patient reported outcome measures of quality of end-of-life care: A systematic review
Published in
Maturitas, February 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.maturitas.2016.11.004
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tara Kearns, Nicola Cornally, William Molloy

Abstract

End-of-life (EoL) care(1) is increasingly used as a generic term in preference to palliative care or terminal care, particularly with reference to individuals with chronic disease, who are resident in community and long-term care (LTC) settings. This review evaluates studies based on patient reported outcome measures (PROMS) of quality of EoL care across all health-care settings. From 1041 citations, 12 studies were extracted by searches conducted in EBSCO, Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane, Open Grey and Google Scholar databases. At present, the evidence base for EoL care is founded on cancer care. This review highlights the paucity of studies that evaluate quality of EoL care for patients with chronic disease outside the established cancer-acute care paradigm, particularly in LTC. This review highlights the absence of any PROMs for the estimated 60% of patients in LTC with cognitive impairment. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are critical to understanding how EoL care services and practices affect patients' health and EoL experience. PROMs describe the quality of care from the patient's perspective and add balance to existing clinical or proxy-derived knowledge on the quality of care and services provided.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 167 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 164 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 19%
Student > Bachelor 20 12%
Researcher 18 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 10%
Other 14 8%
Other 34 20%
Unknown 34 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 58 35%
Medicine and Dentistry 40 24%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 10 6%
Unknown 45 27%
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 09 July 2018.
All research outputs
#13,486,526
of 22,899,952 outputs
Outputs from Maturitas
#1,685
of 2,631 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#211,104
of 419,909 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Maturitas
#25
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,899,952 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,631 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 419,909 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.