↓ Skip to main content

Health Care Professionals’ Understandings of Cross-Cultural Interaction in End-of-Life Care: A Focus Group Study

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS ONE, November 2016
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 (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
24 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
Health Care Professionals’ Understandings of Cross-Cultural Interaction in End-of-Life Care: A Focus Group Study
Published in
PLoS ONE, November 2016
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0165452
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna Milberg, Sandra Torres, Pernilla Ågård, Alfonso Carvajal

Abstract

The academic debate on cross-cultural interaction within the context of end-of-life care takes for granted that this interaction is challenging. However, few empirical studies have actually focused on what health care professionals think about this interaction. This study aimed to explore health care professionals' understandings of cross-cultural interaction during end-of-life care. Sixty end-of-life care professionals were recruited from eleven care units in Sweden to take part in focus group interviews. These interviews were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. The health care professionals interviewed talked about cross-cultural interaction in end-of-life care as interaction that brings about uncertainty, stress and frustration even though they had limited experience of this type of interaction. The focus group discussions brought attention to four specific challenges that they expected to meet when they care for patients with migrant backgrounds since they took for granted that they would have an ethno-cultural background that is different to their own. These challenges had to do with communication barriers, 'unusual' emotional and pain expressions, the expectation that these patients' families would be 'different' and the anticipation that these patients and their families lack knowledge. At the core of the challenges in question is the idea that cross-cultural interaction means meeting "the unknown". In addition, the end-of-life care professionals interviewed talked about patients whose backgrounds they did not share in homogenizing terms. It is against this backdrop that they worried about their ability to provide end-of-life care that is individualized enough to meet the needs of these patients. The study suggests that end-of-life care professionals who regard cross-cultural interaction in this manner could face actual challenges when caring for patients whose backgrounds they regard as "the unknown" since they anticipate a variety of challenges and do not seem confident enough that they can provide good quality care when cross-cultural interaction is at stake.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 21%
Student > Bachelor 4 17%
Student > Postgraduate 4 17%
Other 3 13%
Unspecified 2 8%
Other 6 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 11 46%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 21%
Unspecified 2 8%
Philosophy 1 4%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Other 4 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 13 September 2017.
All research outputs
#1,687,402
of 9,183,818 outputs
Outputs from PLoS ONE
#28,720
of 122,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,067
of 314,232 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS ONE
#1,256
of 5,428 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,183,818 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 122,244 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 314,232 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,428 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.