↓ Skip to main content

Training and supportive programs for palliative care volunteers in community settings

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2015
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 (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
27 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 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
Training and supportive programs for palliative care volunteers in community settings
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009500.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dell Horey, Annette F Street, Margaret O'Connor, Louise Peters, Susan F Lee

Abstract

Palliative care is specialised health care to support people living with a terminal illness and their families. The involvement of volunteers can extend the range of activities offered by palliative care services, particularly for those living in the community. Activities undertaken by palliative care volunteers vary considerably but can be practical, social or emotional in nature. The types of training and support provided to these volunteers are likely to affect the volunteers' effectiveness in their role and influence the quality of care provided to palliative care clients and their families. Training and support can also have considerable resource implications for palliative care organisations, which makes it important to know how to provide this training and support as effectively as possible. To assess the effects of training and support strategies for palliative care volunteers on palliative care clients and their families, volunteers and service quality. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, 28 April 2014); MEDLINE (1946 to 28 April 2014); EMBASE (1988 to 28 April 2014); PsycINFO (1806 to 28 April 2014); CINAHL (EbscoHOST) (1981 to 28 April 2014); ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (1861 to 28 April 2014). We also searched the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE, The Cochrane Library); reference lists of relevant studies; and conducted an extensive search for evaluations published in government reports and other grey literature including the CareSearch database (www.caresearch.com.au (September 2004 to February 2012) and websites of relevant organisations, for unpublished and ongoing studies. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomised controlled trials, controlled before-and-after (CBA) studies and interrupted time series (ITS) studies of all formal training and support programs for palliative care volunteers. Programs or strategies in included studies were classified according to any stated or implied purpose: that is, whether they intended to build skills for the volunteer's role, to enhance their coping, or to maintain service standards. Two review authors screened 2614 citations identified through the electronic searches after duplicates were removed. The search of grey literature through websites yielded no additional titles. We identified 28 potentially relevant titles but found no studies eligible for inclusion. We did not find any studies that assessed the effects of training and support strategies for palliative care volunteers that meet our inclusion criteria. The excluded studies suggest that trials in this area are possible. The use of palliative care volunteers is likely to continue, but there is an absence of evidence to show how best to train or support them whilst maintaining standards of care for palliative care patients and their families.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 100 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 22%
Unspecified 20 20%
Student > Master 18 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 10%
Other 21 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 24%
Unspecified 21 21%
Social Sciences 12 12%
Psychology 12 12%
Other 8 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 30 November 2016.
All research outputs
#1,017,680
of 13,600,644 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,100
of 10,670 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,274
of 232,896 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#85
of 247 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,600,644 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,670 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 232,896 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 247 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 65% of its contemporaries.