↓ Skip to main content

Reorganising specialist cancer surgery for the twenty-first century: a mixed methods evaluation (RESPECT-21)

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, November 2016
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 (81st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 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
Reorganising specialist cancer surgery for the twenty-first century: a mixed methods evaluation (RESPECT-21)
Published in
Implementation Science, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13012-016-0520-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Naomi J. Fulop, Angus I. G. Ramsay, Cecilia Vindrola-Padros, Michael Aitchison, Ruth J. Boaden, Veronica Brinton, Caroline S. Clarke, John Hines, Rachael M. Hunter, Claire Levermore, Satish B. Maddineni, Mariya Melnychuk, Caroline M. Moore, Muntzer M. Mughal, Catherine Perry, Kathy Pritchard-Jones, David C. Shackley, Jonathan Vickers, Stephen Morris

Abstract

There are longstanding recommendations to centralise specialist healthcare services, citing the potential to reduce variations in care and improve patient outcomes. Current activity to centralise specialist cancer surgical services in two areas of England provides an opportunity to study the planning, implementation and outcomes of such changes. London Cancer and Manchester Cancer are centralising specialist surgical pathways for prostate, bladder, renal, and oesophago-gastric cancers, so that these services are provided in fewer hospitals. The centralisations in London were implemented between November 2015 and April 2016, while implementation in Manchester is anticipated in 2017. This mixed methods evaluation will analyse stakeholder preferences for centralisations; it will use qualitative methods to analyse planning, implementation and sustainability of the centralisations ('how and why?'); and it will use a controlled before and after design to study the impact of centralisation on clinical processes, clinical outcomes, cost-effectiveness and patient experience ('what works and at what cost?'). The study will use a framework developed in previous research on major system change in acute stroke services. A discrete choice experiment will examine patient, public and professional preferences for centralisations of this kind. Qualitative methods will include documentary analysis, stakeholder interviews and non-participant observations of meetings. Quantitative methods will include analysis of local and national data on clinical processes, outcomes, costs and National Cancer Patient Experience Survey data. Finally, we will hold a workshop for those involved in centralisations of specialist services in other settings to discuss how these lessons might apply more widely. This multi-site study will address gaps in the evidence on stakeholder preferences for centralisations of specialist cancer surgery and the processes, impact and cost-effectiveness of changes of this kind. With increasing drives to centralise specialist services, lessons from this study will be of value to those who commission, organise and manage cancer services, as well as services for other conditions and in other settings. The study will face challenges in terms of recruitment, the retrospective analysis of some of the changes, the distinction between primary and secondary outcome measures, and obtaining information on the resources spent on the reconfiguration.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 69 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 19%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Professor 6 9%
Other 5 7%
Other 15 22%
Unknown 16 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 22%
Social Sciences 7 10%
Psychology 6 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 4%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 22 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 31 August 2018.
All research outputs
#3,927,262
of 22,903,988 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#787
of 1,722 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,050
of 415,669 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#18
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,903,988 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,722 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 415,669 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.