↓ Skip to main content

Strategies to implement evidence into practice to improve palliative care: recommendations of a nominal group approach with expert opinion leaders

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Palliative Care, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 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
Strategies to implement evidence into practice to improve palliative care: recommendations of a nominal group approach with expert opinion leaders
Published in
BMC Palliative Care, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12904-015-0044-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jasper van Riet Paap, Kris Vissers, Steve Iliffe, Lukas Radbruch, Marianne J. Hjermstad, Rabih Chattat, Myrra Vernooij-Dassen, Yvonne Engels, on behalf of the IMPACT research team

Abstract

In the past decades, many new insights and best practices in palliative care, a relatively new field in health care, have been published. However, this knowledge is often not implemented. The aim of this study therefore was to identify strategies to implement improvement activities identified in a research project within daily palliative care practice. A nominal group technique was used with members of the IMPACT consortium, being international researchers and clinicians in cancer care, dementia care and palliative care. Participants identified and prioritized implementation strategies. Data was analyzed qualitatively using inductive coding. Twenty international clinicians and researchers participated in one of two parallel nominal group sessions. The recommended strategies to implement results from a research project were grouped in five common themes: 1. Dissemination of results e.g. by publishing results tailored to relevant audiences, 2. Identification and dissemination of unique selling points, 3. education e.g. by developing e-learning tools and integrating scientific evidence into core curricula, 4. Stimulation of participation of stakeholders, and 5. consideration of consequences e.g. rewarding services for their implementation successes but not services that fail to implement quality improvement activities. The added value of this nominal group study lies in the prioritisation by the experts of strategies to influence the implementation of quality improvement activities in palliative care. Efforts to ensure future use of scientific findings should be built into research projects in order to prevent waste of resources.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Unknown 86 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 20%
Researcher 11 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Professor 5 6%
Other 17 19%
Unknown 18 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 22%
Social Sciences 10 11%
Engineering 5 6%
Psychology 5 6%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 21 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 09 April 2016.
All research outputs
#5,115,440
of 24,713,766 outputs
Outputs from BMC Palliative Care
#659
of 1,412 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,822
of 279,974 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Palliative Care
#6
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,713,766 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,412 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 279,974 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.