↓ Skip to main content

Hospital at home: home-based end-of-life care

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
55 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
287 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Hospital at home: home-based end-of-life care
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009231.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sasha Shepperd, Daniela C. Gonçalves-Bradley, Sharon E Straus, Bee Wee

Abstract

The policy in a number of countries is to provide people with a terminal illness the choice of dying at home. This policy is supported by surveys indicating that the general public and people with a terminal illness would prefer to receive end-of-life care at home. This is the fourth update of the original review. To determine if providing home-based end-of-life care reduces the likelihood of dying in hospital and what effect this has on patients' symptoms, quality of life, health service costs, and caregivers, compared with inpatient hospital or hospice care. We searched the following databases until April 2015: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE(R) (from 1950), EMBASE (from 1980), CINAHL (from 1982), and EconLit (from 1969). We checked the reference lists of potentially relevant articles identified and handsearched palliative care publications, clinical trials registries, and a database of systematic reviews for related trials (PDQ-Evidence 2015). Randomised controlled trials, interrupted time series, or controlled before and after studies evaluating the effectiveness of home-based end-of-life care with inpatient hospital or hospice care for people aged 18 years and older. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality. We combined the published data for dichotomous outcomes using fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel meta-analysis. When combining outcome data was not possible, we reported the results from individual studies. We included four trials in this review and did not identify new studies from the search in April 2015. Home-based end-of-life care increased the likelihood of dying at home compared with usual care (risk ratio (RR) 1.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 1.55, P = 0.0002; Chi(2) = 1.72, df = 2, P = 0.42, I(2) = 0%; 3 trials; N = 652; high quality evidence). Admission to hospital while receiving home-based end-of-life care varied between trials, and this was reflected by a high level of statistical heterogeneity in this analysis (range RR 0.62 to RR 2.61; 4 trials; N = 823; moderate quality evidence). Home-based end-of-life care may slightly improve patient satisfaction at one-month follow-up and reduce it at six-month follow-up (2 trials; low quality evidence). The effect on caregivers is uncertain (2 trials; low quality evidence). The intervention may slightly reduce healthcare costs (2 trials, low quality evidence). No trial reported costs to patients and caregivers. The evidence included in this review supports the use of home-based end-of-life care programmes for increasing the number of people who will die at home, although the numbers of people admitted to hospital while receiving end-of-life care should be monitored. Future research should systematically assess the impact of home-based end-of-life care on caregivers.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 55 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 287 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Japan 2 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 279 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 55 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 13%
Student > Bachelor 33 11%
Researcher 32 11%
Other 25 9%
Other 54 19%
Unknown 51 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 96 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 73 25%
Social Sciences 14 5%
Psychology 10 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 2%
Other 24 8%
Unknown 63 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 48. 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 24 January 2019.
All research outputs
#403,048
of 14,337,811 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,094
of 10,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,904
of 267,340 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#29
of 189 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,337,811 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,948 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 267,340 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 189 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.