↓ Skip to main content

The perspectives of clinical staff and bereaved informal care-givers on the use of continuous sedation until death for cancer patients: The study protocol of the UNBIASED study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Palliative Care, March 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 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
The perspectives of clinical staff and bereaved informal care-givers on the use of continuous sedation until death for cancer patients: The study protocol of the UNBIASED study
Published in
BMC Palliative Care, March 2011
DOI 10.1186/1472-684x-10-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jane Seymour, Judith Rietjens, Jayne Brown, Agnes van der Heide, Sigrid Sterckx, Luc Deliens, the UNBIASED study team

Abstract

A significant minority of dying people experience refractory symptoms or extreme distress unresponsive to conventional therapies. In such circumstances, sedation may be used to decrease or remove consciousness until death occurs. This practice is described in a variety of ways, including: 'palliative sedation', 'terminal sedation', 'continuous deep sedation until death', 'proportionate sedation' or 'palliative sedation to unconsciousness'. Surveys show large unexplained variation in incidence of sedation at the end of life across countries and care settings and there are ethical concerns about the use, intentions, risks and significance of the practice in palliative care. There are also questions about how to explain international variation in the use of the practice. This protocol relates to the UNBIASED study (UK Netherlands Belgium International Sedation Study), which comprises three linked studies with separate funding sources in the UK, Belgium and the Netherlands. The aims of the study are to explore decision-making surrounding the application of continuous sedation until death in contemporary clinical practice, and to understand the experiences of clinical staff and decedents' informal care-givers of the use of continuous sedation until death and their perceptions of its contribution to the dying process. The UNBIASED study is part of the European Association for Palliative Care Research Network.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Spain 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 110 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 15%
Researcher 15 13%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Other 24 21%
Unknown 30 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 16%
Psychology 10 9%
Social Sciences 7 6%
Unspecified 6 5%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 32 28%
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 09 May 2015.
All research outputs
#7,438,092
of 22,738,543 outputs
Outputs from BMC Palliative Care
#796
of 1,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,306
of 108,824 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Palliative Care
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,738,543 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 1,244 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.4. 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 108,824 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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.