↓ Skip to main content

Screening for distress, the 6th vital sign: common problems in cancer outpatients over one year in usual care: associations with marital status, sex, and age

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, October 2012
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 (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
80 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
Screening for distress, the 6th vital sign: common problems in cancer outpatients over one year in usual care: associations with marital status, sex, and age
Published in
BMC Cancer, October 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2407-12-441
Pubmed ID
Authors

Janine Giese-Davis, Amy Waller, Linda E Carlson, Shannon Groff, Lihong Zhong, Eric Neri, Sacha M Bachor, Jassandre Adamyk-Simpson, Kate MS Rancourt, Bernie Dunlop, Barry D Bultz

Abstract

Very few studies examine the longitudinal prevalence of problems and the awareness or use of clinical programs by patients who report these problems. Of the studies that examine age, gender and marital status as predictors of a range of patient outcomes, none examines the interactions between these demographic variables. This study examined the typical trajectory of common practical and psychosocial problems endorsed over 12 months in a usual-care sample of cancer outpatients. Specifically, we examined whether marital status, sex, age, and their interactions predicted these trajectories. We did not actively triage or refer patients in this study in order to examine the natural course of problem reports.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 77 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 18%
Student > Master 14 18%
Researcher 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 16 20%
Unknown 17 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 18 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 11%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 19 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 18 August 2014.
All research outputs
#3,176,914
of 22,685,926 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#727
of 8,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,177
of 172,314 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#10
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,685,926 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,249 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 172,314 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.