↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Training and supportive programs for palliative care volunteers in community settings

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
27 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
175 Mendeley
Title
Training and supportive programs for palliative care volunteers in community settings
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009500.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dell Horey, Annette F Street, Margaret O'Connor, Louise Peters, Susan F Lee

Abstract

Palliative care is specialised health care to support people living with a terminal illness and their families. The involvement of volunteers can extend the range of activities offered by palliative care services, particularly for those living in the community. Activities undertaken by palliative care volunteers vary considerably but can be practical, social or emotional in nature. The types of training and support provided to these volunteers are likely to affect the volunteers' effectiveness in their role and influence the quality of care provided to palliative care clients and their families. Training and support can also have considerable resource implications for palliative care organisations, which makes it important to know how to provide this training and support as effectively as possible. To assess the effects of training and support strategies for palliative care volunteers on palliative care clients and their families, volunteers and service quality. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, 28 April 2014); MEDLINE (1946 to 28 April 2014); EMBASE (1988 to 28 April 2014); PsycINFO (1806 to 28 April 2014); CINAHL (EbscoHOST) (1981 to 28 April 2014); ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (1861 to 28 April 2014). We also searched the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE, The Cochrane Library); reference lists of relevant studies; and conducted an extensive search for evaluations published in government reports and other grey literature including the CareSearch database (www.caresearch.com.au (September 2004 to February 2012) and websites of relevant organisations, for unpublished and ongoing studies. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomised controlled trials, controlled before-and-after (CBA) studies and interrupted time series (ITS) studies of all formal training and support programs for palliative care volunteers. Programs or strategies in included studies were classified according to any stated or implied purpose: that is, whether they intended to build skills for the volunteer's role, to enhance their coping, or to maintain service standards. Two review authors screened 2614 citations identified through the electronic searches after duplicates were removed. The search of grey literature through websites yielded no additional titles. We identified 28 potentially relevant titles but found no studies eligible for inclusion. We did not find any studies that assessed the effects of training and support strategies for palliative care volunteers that meet our inclusion criteria. The excluded studies suggest that trials in this area are possible. The use of palliative care volunteers is likely to continue, but there is an absence of evidence to show how best to train or support them whilst maintaining standards of care for palliative care patients and their families.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 175 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 174 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 17%
Researcher 27 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 11%
Student > Bachelor 15 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 6%
Other 34 19%
Unknown 41 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 34 19%
Social Sciences 21 12%
Psychology 19 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Other 17 10%
Unknown 41 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 01 January 2020.
All research outputs
#1,080,291
of 17,446,661 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,815
of 11,688 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,992
of 241,055 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#77
of 247 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,446,661 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 11,688 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 241,055 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 247 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.