↓ Skip to main content

Optimum hospice at home services for end-of-life care: protocol of a mixed-methods study employing realist evaluation

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 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
Optimum hospice at home services for end-of-life care: protocol of a mixed-methods study employing realist evaluation
Published in
BMJ Open, May 2018
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-021192
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claire Butler, Charlotte Brigden, Heather Gage, Peter Williams, Laura Holdsworth, Kay Greene, Bee Wee, Stephen Barclay, Patricia Wilson

Abstract

Hospice at home (HAH) services aim to enable patients to be cared for and die in their place of choice, if that is at home, and to achieve a 'good death'. There is a considerable range of HAH services operating in England. The published evidence focuses on evaluations of individual services which vary considerably, and there is a lack of consistency in terms of the outcome measures reported. The evidence, therefore, does not provide generalisable information, so the question 'What are the features of hospice at home service models that work, for whom, and under what circumstances?' remains unanswered. The study aims to answer this question. This is a mixed-methods study in three phases informed by realist evaluation methodology. All HAH services in England will be invited to participate in a telephone survey to enable the development of a typology of services. In the second phase, case study sites representing the different service types will collect patient data and recruit carers, service managers and commissioners to gather quantitative and qualitative data about service provision and outcomes. A third phase will synthesise and refine the results through consensus workshops. The first survey phase has university ethics approval and the second phase, Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) and Health Research Authority (HRA) approval (IRAS ID:205986, REC:17/LO/0880); the third phase does not require ethics approval. Dissemination will be facilitated by project coapplicants with established connections to national policy-making forums, in addition to publications, conference presentations and reports targeted to service providers and commissioners.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 19%
Librarian 2 13%
Other 2 13%
Student > Postgraduate 1 6%
Other 5 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 31%
Social Sciences 2 13%
Computer Science 1 6%
Psychology 1 6%
Other 2 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 21 May 2019.
All research outputs
#1,444,467
of 13,855,981 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#3,230
of 12,517 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,360
of 275,153 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#131
of 571 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,855,981 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,517 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 275,153 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 571 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.