↓ Skip to main content

The feasibility and acceptability of trial procedures for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial of a structured physical activity intervention for people diagnosed with colorectal cancer: findings…

Overview of attention for article published in Pilot and Feasibility Studies, August 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
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 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
The feasibility and acceptability of trial procedures for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial of a structured physical activity intervention for people diagnosed with colorectal cancer: findings from a pilot trial of cardiac rehabilitation versus usual care (no rehabilitation) with an embedded qualitative study
Published in
Pilot and Feasibility Studies, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40814-016-0090-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gill Hubbard, Ronan O’Carroll, Julie Munro, Nanette Mutrie, Sally Haw, Helen Mason, Shaun Treweek

Abstract

Pilot and feasibility work is conducted to evaluate the operational feasibility and acceptability of the intervention itself and the feasibility and acceptability of a trials' protocol design. The Cardiac Rehabilitation In Bowel cancer (CRIB) study was a pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) of cardiac rehabilitation versus usual care (no rehabilitation) for post-surgical colorectal cancer patients. A key aim of the pilot trial was to test the feasibility and acceptability of the protocol design. A pilot RCT with embedded qualitative work was conducted in three sites. Participants were randomly allocated to cardiac rehabilitation or usual care groups. Outcomes used to assess the feasibility and acceptability of key trial parameters were screening, eligibility, consent, randomisation, adverse events, retention, completion, missing data, and intervention adherence rates. Colorectal patients' and clinicians' perceptions and experiences of the main trial procedures were explored by interview. Quantitative study. Three sites were involved. Screening, eligibility, consent, and retention rates were 79 % (156/198), 67 % (133/198), 31 % (41/133), and 93 % (38/41), respectively. Questionnaire completion rates were 97.5 % (40/41), 75 % (31/41), and 61 % (25/41) at baseline, follow-up 1, and follow-up 2, respectively. Sixty-nine percent (40) of accelerometer datasets were collected from participants; 31 % (20) were removed for not meeting wear-time validation. Qualitative study: Thirty-eight patients and eight clinicians participated. Key themes were benefits for people with colorectal cancer attending cardiac rehabilitation, barriers for people with colorectal cancer attending cardiac rehabilitation, generic versus disease-specific rehabilitation, key concerns about including people with cancer in cardiac rehabilitation, and barriers to involvement in a study about cardiac rehabilitation. The study highlights where threats to internal and external validity are likely to arise in any future studies of similar structured physical activity interventions for colorectal cancer patients using similar methods being conducted in similar contexts. This study shows that there is likely to be potential recruitment bias and potential imprecision due to sub-optimal completion of outcome measures, missing data, and sub-optimal intervention adherence. Hence, strategies to manage these risks should be developed to stack the odds in favour of conducting successful future trials. ISRCTN63510637.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 83 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 20%
Student > Master 14 17%
Researcher 10 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 5 6%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 24 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 15%
Psychology 8 10%
Sports and Recreations 2 2%
Arts and Humanities 2 2%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 27 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 12 April 2017.
All research outputs
#7,660,960
of 23,321,213 outputs
Outputs from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#498
of 1,061 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,224
of 343,038 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#19
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,321,213 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,061 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 343,038 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.