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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Are socio-economic inequalities in breast cancer survival explained by peri-diagnostic factors?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Cancer, May 2021
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12885-021-08087-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Laura M. Woods, Bernard Rachet, Melanie Morris, Krishnan Bhaskaran, Michel P. Coleman |
| Abstract |
Patients living in more deprived localities have lower cancer survival in England, but the role of individual health status at diagnosis and the utilisation of primary health care in explaining these differentials has not been widely considered. We set out to evaluate whether pre-existing individual health status at diagnosis and primary care consultation history (peri-diagnostic factors) could explain socio-economic differentials in survival amongst women diagnosed with breast cancer. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of women aged 15-99 years diagnosed in England using linked routine data. Ecologically-derived measures of income deprivation were combined with individually-linked data from the English National Cancer Registry, Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES) databases. Smoking status, alcohol consumption, BMI, comorbidity, and consultation histories were derived for all patients. Time to breast surgery was derived for women diagnosed after 2005. We estimated net survival and modelled the excess hazard ratio of breast cancer death using flexible parametric models. We accounted for missing data using multiple imputation. Net survival was lower amongst more deprived women, with a single unit increase in deprivation quintile inferring a 4.4% (95% CI 1.4-8.8) increase in excess mortality. Peri-diagnostic co-variables varied by deprivation but did not explain the differentials in multivariable analyses. These data show that socio-economic inequalities in survival cannot be explained by consultation history or by pre-existing individual health status, as measured in primary care. Differentials in the effectiveness of treatment, beyond those measuring the inclusion of breast surgery and the timing of surgery, should be considered as part of the wider effort to reduce inequalities in premature mortality. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 60% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 56 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 13% |
| Researcher | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 11% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Unknown | 24 | 43% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 4% |
| Mathematics | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 18% |
| Unknown | 28 | 50% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 05 May 2021.
All research outputs
#7,406,066
of 23,308,124 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#2,002
of 8,441 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,746
of 438,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#59
of 308 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,308,124 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,441 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. 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 438,160 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 308 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.