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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Barriers to Advance Care Planning in Cancer, Heart Failure and Dementia Patients: A Focus Group Study on General Practitioners' Views and Experiences
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0084905 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Aline De Vleminck, Koen Pardon, Kim Beernaert, Reginald Deschepper, Dirk Houttekier, Chantal Van Audenhove, Luc Deliens, Robert Vander Stichele |
| Abstract |
The long-term and often lifelong relationship of general practitioners (GPs) with their patients is considered to make them the ideal initiators of advance care planning (ACP). However, in general the incidence of ACP discussions is low and ACP seems to occur more often for cancer patients than for those with dementia or heart failure. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 57% |
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 86% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 300 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 2 | <1% |
| Japan | 2 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 292 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 51 | 17% |
| Researcher | 42 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 40 | 13% |
| Other | 26 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 23 | 8% |
| Other | 66 | 22% |
| Unknown | 52 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 115 | 38% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 55 | 18% |
| Social Sciences | 27 | 9% |
| Psychology | 20 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 6 | 2% |
| Other | 22 | 7% |
| Unknown | 55 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 17 October 2014.
All research outputs
#6,716,599
of 22,741,406 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#79,199
of 194,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,399
of 305,589 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,997
of 5,578 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,741,406 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,090 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 305,589 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,578 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.