↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Typology of end-of-life priorities in Saudi females: averaging analysis and Q-methodology

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
Title
Typology of end-of-life priorities in Saudi females: averaging analysis and Q-methodology
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, May 2016
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s105578
Pubmed ID
Authors

Muhammad M Hammami, Safa Hammami, Hala A Amer, Nesrine A Khodr

Abstract

Understanding culture-and sex-related end-of-life preferences is essential to provide quality end-of-life care. We have previously explored end-of-life choices in Saudi males and found important culture-related differences and that Q-methodology is useful in identifying intraculture, opinion-based groups. Here, we explore Saudi females' end-of-life choices. A volunteer sample of 68 females rank-ordered 47 opinion statements on end-of-life issues into a nine-category symmetrical distribution. The ranking scores of the statements were analyzed by averaging analysis and Q-methodology. The mean age of the females in the sample was 30.3 years (range, 19-55 years). Among them, 51% reported average religiosity, 78% reported very good health, 79% reported very good life quality, and 100% reported high-school education or more. The extreme five overall priorities were to be able to say the statement of faith, be at peace with God, die without having the body exposed, maintain dignity, and resolve all conflicts. The extreme five overall dis-priorities were to die in the hospital, die well dressed, be informed about impending death by family/friends rather than doctor, die at peak of life, and not know if one has a fatal illness. Q-methodology identified five opinion-based groups with qualitatively different characteristics: "physical and emotional privacy concerned, family caring" (younger, lower religiosity), "whole person" (higher religiosity), "pain and informational privacy concerned" (lower life quality), "decisional privacy concerned" (older, higher life quality), and "life quantity concerned, family dependent" (high life quality, low life satisfaction). Out of the extreme 14 priorities/dis-priorities for each group, 21%-50% were not represented among the extreme 20 priorities/dis-priorities for the entire sample. Consistent with the previously reported findings in Saudi males, transcendence and dying in the hospital were the extreme end-of-life priority and dis-priority, respectively, in Saudi females. Body modesty was a major overall concern; however, concerns about pain, various types of privacy, and life quantity were variably emphasized by the five opinion-based groups but masked by averaging analysis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 15%
Student > Master 7 15%
Lecturer 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Researcher 3 7%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 18 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 7 15%
Psychology 6 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 13%
Social Sciences 4 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 18 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 19 May 2016.
All research outputs
#14,850,641
of 22,870,727 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#884
of 1,602 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,449
of 298,384 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#43
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,870,727 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,602 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 298,384 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.