↓ Skip to main content

Assessing the acceptability and feasibility of encounter decision aids for early stage breast cancer targeted at underserved patients

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 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
Assessing the acceptability and feasibility of encounter decision aids for early stage breast cancer targeted at underserved patients
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12911-016-0384-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shama Alam, Glyn Elwyn, Sanja Percac-Lima, Stuart Grande, Marie-Anne Durand

Abstract

Women of low socioeconomic status (SES) diagnosed with early stage breast cancer are less likely to be involved in treatment decisions. They tend to report higher decisional regret and poorer communication. Evidence suggests that well-designed encounter decision aids (DAs) could improve outcomes and potentially reduce healthcare disparities. Our goal was to evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of encounter decision aids (Option Grid, Comic Option Grid, and Picture Option Grid) adapted for a low-SES and low-literacy population. We used a multi-phase, mixed-methods approach. In phase 1, we conducted a focus group with rural community stakeholders. In phase 2, we developed and administered a web-based questionnaire with patients of low and high SES. In phase 3, we interviewed patients of low SES and relevant healthcare professionals. Data from phase 1 (n = 5) highlighted the importance of addressing treatment costs for patients. Data from phase 2 (n = 268) and phase 3 (n = 15) indicated that using both visual displays and numbers are helpful for understanding statistical information. Data from all three phases suggested that using plain language and simple images (Picture Option Grid) was most acceptable and feasible. The Comic Option Grid was deemed least acceptable. Option Grid and Picture Option Grid appeared acceptable and feasible in facilitating patient involvement and improving perceived understanding among patients of high and low SES. Picture Option Grid was considered most acceptable, accessible and feasible in the clinic visit. However, given the small sample sizes used, those findings need to be interpreted with caution. Further research is needed to determine the impact of pictorial and text-based encounter decision aids in underserved patients and across socioeconomic strata.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Unknown 96 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 16%
Researcher 14 14%
Student > Master 13 13%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 4%
Other 17 17%
Unknown 23 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 16%
Psychology 15 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 11%
Social Sciences 9 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 16 16%
Unknown 28 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 24 April 2018.
All research outputs
#6,834,676
of 25,715,849 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#592
of 2,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,782
of 417,409 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#6
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,715,849 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 417,409 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.