↓ Skip to main content

Do Patients Want to Die at Home? A Systematic Review of the UK Literature, Focused on Missing Preferences for Place of Death

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
259 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
73 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
144 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
Do Patients Want to Die at Home? A Systematic Review of the UK Literature, Focused on Missing Preferences for Place of Death
Published in
PLOS ONE, November 2015
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0142723
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah Hoare, Zoë Slote Morris, Michael P Kelly, Isla Kuhn, Stephen Barclay

Abstract

End-of-life care policy has a focus on enabling patients to die in their preferred place; this is believed for most to be home. This review assesses patient preferences for place of death examining: the extent of unreported preferences, the importance of patient factors (place of care and health diagnosis) and who reports preferences. Systematic literature review of 7 electronic databases, grey literature, backwards citations from included studies and Palliative Medicine hand search. Included studies published between 2000-2015, reporting original, quantifiable results of adult UK preferences for place of death. Of 10826 articles reviewed, 61 met the inclusion criteria. Summary charts present preferences for place of death by health diagnosis, where patients were asked and who reported the preference. These charts are recalculated to include 'missing data,' the views of those whose preferences were not asked, expressed or reported or absent in studies. Missing data were common. Across all health conditions when missing data were excluded the majority preference was for home: when missing data were included, it was not known what proportion of patients with cancer, non-cancer or multiple conditions preferred home. Patients, family proxies and public all expressed a majority preference for home when missing data were excluded: when included, it was not known what proportion of patients or family proxies preferred home. Where patients wished to die was related to where they were asked their preference. Missing data calculations are limited to 'reported' data. It is unknown what proportion of patients prefers to die at home or elsewhere. Reported preferences for place of death often exclude the views of those with no preference or not asked: when 'missing data' are included, they supress the proportion of preferences for all locations. Caution should be exercised if asserting that most patients prefer to die at home.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 259 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 144 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 2 1%
Hong Kong 1 <1%
Unknown 141 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 23%
Researcher 16 11%
Student > Bachelor 14 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 8%
Student > Postgraduate 10 7%
Other 39 27%
Unknown 21 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 56 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 16%
Social Sciences 12 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 5%
Psychology 4 3%
Other 9 6%
Unknown 33 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 162. 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 15 October 2019.
All research outputs
#144,603
of 17,970,704 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#2,469
of 167,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,967
of 291,906 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#65
of 5,052 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,970,704 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 167,728 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 291,906 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,052 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.