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
| Title |
Strategies for Promoting High-Quality Care and Personal Resilience in Palliative Care
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
AMA Journal of Ethics, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.6.pfor2-1706 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Abstract |
Palliative care (PC) clinicians are faced with ever-expanding pressures, which can make it difficult to fulfill their duties to self and others and lead to moral distress. Understanding the pressures that PC clinicians face and the resources that could be employed to ease their moral distress is crucial to maintaining a healthy PC workforce and to providing necessary PC services to patients. In this paper, we discuss recommendations related to two promising pathways for supporting PC clinicians in providing high-quality PC: (1) improving systemic PC delivery and (2) strategies to promote ethical practice environments and individual resilience. Enacting these recommendations holds promise for sustaining higher-quality and accessible PC and a more engaged PC workforce. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 States | 6 | 33% |
| Canada | 3 | 17% |
| Sudan | 1 | 6% |
| Italy | 1 | 6% |
| Spain | 1 | 6% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 5 | 28% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 56% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 28% |
| Scientists | 2 | 11% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 35 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 9% |
| Professor | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 10 | 29% |
| Unknown | 9 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 11% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 9% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 12 | 34% |