↓ Skip to main content

Training general practitioners in early identification and anticipatory palliative care planning: a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Primary Care, September 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 (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
189 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 general practitioners in early identification and anticipatory palliative care planning: a randomized controlled trial
Published in
BMC Primary Care, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12875-015-0342-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bregje Thoonsen, Kris Vissers, S. Verhagen, J. Prins, H. Bor, C. van Weel, M. Groot, Y. Engels

Abstract

Most patients with advanced cancer, debilitating COPD or chronic heart failure (CHF) live at home. General practitioners (GPs) asked for guidance in how to recognize patients in need of palliative care in a timely way and to structure anticipatory care. For that reason, we developed a training for GPs in identifying patients in need of palliative care and in structuring anticipatory palliative care planning and studied its effect on out-of-hours contacts, contacts with their own GP, hospitalizations and place of death. We performed a cluster randomised controlled trial. GPs in the intervention group were trained in identifying patients in need of palliative care and anticipatory care planning. Next, for each identified patient, they were offered a coaching session with a specialist in palliative care to fine-tune a structured care plan. The GPs in the control group did not receive training or coaching, and were asked to provide care as usual. After one year, characteristics of patients deceased of cancer, COPD or CHF in both study groups were compared with mixed effects models for out-of-hours contacts (primary outcome), contacts with their own GP, place of death and hospitalizations in the last months of their life (secondary outcomes). As a post-hoc analysis, of identified patients (of the intervention GPs) these figures were compared to all other deceased patients, who had not been identified as in need of palliative care. We did not find any differences between the intervention and control group. Yet, only half of the trained GPs (28) identified patients (52), which was only 24 % of the deceased patients. Those identified patients had significantly more contacts with their own GP (B 4.5218; p <0.0006), were less often hospitalized (OR 0.485; p 0.0437) more often died at home (OR 2.126; p 0.0572) and less often died in the hospital (OR 0.380; p 0.0449). Although we did not find differences between the intervention and control group, we found in a post-hoc analysis that those patients that had been identified as in need of palliative care had more contacts with their GP, less hospitalizations, and more often died at home. We recommend future controlled studies that try to further increase identification of patients eligible for anticipatory palliative care. The Netherlands National Trial Register: NTR2815 date 07-04-2010.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 189 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 187 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 14%
Researcher 17 9%
Other 15 8%
Student > Bachelor 14 7%
Other 31 16%
Unknown 46 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 63 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 45 24%
Social Sciences 9 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 2%
Psychology 3 2%
Other 12 6%
Unknown 53 28%
Attention Score in Context

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 07 November 2016.
All research outputs
#3,221,788
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from BMC Primary Care
#430
of 2,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,711
of 285,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Primary Care
#10
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,359 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 285,972 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.