↓ Skip to main content

A consultation training program for physicians for communication about complementary medicine with breast cancer patients: a prospective, multi-center, cluster-randomized, mixed-method pilot study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
132 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
A consultation training program for physicians for communication about complementary medicine with breast cancer patients: a prospective, multi-center, cluster-randomized, mixed-method pilot study
Published in
BMC Cancer, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12885-016-2884-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susanne Blödt, Nadine Mittring, Lena Schützler, Felix Fischer, Christine Holmberg, Markus Horneber, Adele Stapf, Claudia M. Witt

Abstract

The aim was to develop and evaluate a training program for physicians for communicating with breast cancer patients about complementary medicine (CM). In a cluster-randomized pilot trial eight breast cancer centers (two physicians per center) were randomized to either a complementary communication training program (9 h e-learning + 20 h on-site skills training) or to a control group without training. Each physician was asked to consult ten patients for whom he or she is not the physician in charge. We used mixed methods: Quantitative outcomes included physicians' assessments (empathy, complexity of consultation, knowledge transfer) and patients' assessments (satisfaction, empathy, knowledge transfer). For qualitative analyses, 15 (eight in the training and seven in the control group) videotaped consultations were analyzed based on grounded theory, and separate focus groups with the physicians of both groups were conducted. A total of 137 patients were included. Although cluster-randomized, physicians in the two groups differed. Those in the training group were younger (33.4 ± 8.9 vs. 40.0 ± 8.5 years) and had less work experience (5.4 ± 8.9 vs. 11.1 ± 7.4 years). Patient satisfaction with the CM consultation was relatively high on a scale from 0 to 24 and was comparable in the two groups (training group: 19.4 ± 4.6; control group 20.5 ± 4.1). The qualitative findings showed that physicians structured majority of consultations as taught during the training. Comparing only the younger and less CM experienced physicians, those trained in CM communication felt more confident discussing CM-related topics than those without training. A CM communication-training program might be especially beneficial for physicians with less consulting experience when communicating about CM-related issues. A larger trial using more suitable quantitative outcomes needs to confirm this. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02223091 , date of registration: 7 February 2014.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 132 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 14%
Student > Bachelor 16 12%
Student > Master 13 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 5%
Other 26 20%
Unknown 41 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 9%
Psychology 7 5%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Unspecified 7 5%
Other 20 15%
Unknown 50 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 October 2022.
All research outputs
#6,213,683
of 23,006,268 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#1,553
of 8,358 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,319
of 311,882 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#23
of 119 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,006,268 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,358 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 311,882 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 119 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.