↓ Skip to main content

Identifying professionals’ needs in integrating electronic pain monitoring in community palliative care services: An interview study

Overview of attention for article published in Palliative Medicine, November 2016
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)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
35 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
138 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
Identifying professionals’ needs in integrating electronic pain monitoring in community palliative care services: An interview study
Published in
Palliative Medicine, November 2016
DOI 10.1177/0269216316677470
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sally Taylor, Matthew J Allsop, Hilary L Bekker, Michael I Bennett, Bridgette M Bewick

Abstract

Poor pain assessment is a barrier to effective pain control. There is growing interest internationally in the development and implementation of remote monitoring technologies to enhance assessment in cancer and chronic disease contexts. Findings describe the development and testing of pain monitoring systems, but research identifying the needs of health professionals to implement routine monitoring systems within clinical practice is limited. To inform the development and implementation strategy of an electronic pain monitoring system, PainCheck, by understanding palliative care professionals' needs when integrating PainCheck into routine clinical practice. Qualitative study using face-to-face interviews. Data were analysed using framework analysis SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Purposive sample of health professionals managing the palliative care of patients living in the community RESULTS: A total of 15 interviews with health professionals took place. Three meta-themes emerged from the data: (1) uncertainties about integration of PainCheck and changes to current practice, (2) appraisal of current practice and (3) pain management is everybody's responsibility CONCLUSION: Even the most sceptical of health professionals could see the potential benefits of implementing an electronic patient-reported pain monitoring system. Health professionals have reservations about how PainCheck would work in practice. For optimal use, PainCheck needs embedding within existing electronic health records. Electronic pain monitoring systems have the potential to enable professionals to support patients' pain management more effectively but only when barriers to implementation are appropriately identified and addressed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 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 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 138 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 14%
Researcher 16 12%
Other 11 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 8%
Student > Postgraduate 9 7%
Other 27 20%
Unknown 44 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 19%
Psychology 10 7%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 52 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 25 April 2018.
All research outputs
#1,650,380
of 24,496,759 outputs
Outputs from Palliative Medicine
#644
of 2,084 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,564
of 315,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Palliative Medicine
#20
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,496,759 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,084 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 315,982 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 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.