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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Personalised informed choice on evidence and controversy on mammography screening: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Cancer, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12885-017-3428-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anna Roberto, Cinzia Colombo, Giulia Candiani, Livia Giordano, Paola Mantellini, Eugenio Paci, Roberto Satolli, Mario Valenza, Paola Mosconi |
| Abstract |
In Italy women aged 50-69 are invited for a population-based breast cancer (BC) screening. Physicians, policy makers and patients associations agree on the need to inform women about the benefits and harms in order to permit an informed decision. Decision aids (DA) are an effective way to support people in their decisions about health. This trial aims to assess women's informed choices, according to their health literacy and values, on participating or not in BC screening for the first time. Benefits, harms and controversies are presented. The impact of the DA will be evaluated in a randomized controlled trial with a two-week follow-up. Women will be randomized via web to DA or a standard brochure. We will invite 8160 women, to obtain a final sample of 816 women. The primary outcome will be informed choice, measured on the basis of knowledge, attitudes and intentions on BC screening. Secondary outcomes are participation rate, satisfaction on information and decisional conflict. The web DA will be open-source and implemented on BC screenings and its efficacy for increasing informed choice will be tested. This model could be applied to other healthcare settings, cancer screenings, and public health programs. The protocol for this trial was registered with the Clinicaltrials.gov registry on March 16, 2017: NCT03097653 . |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 104 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 13% |
| Researcher | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 20 | 19% |
| Unknown | 39 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 13% |
| Psychology | 3 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 18 | 17% |
| Unknown | 46 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 10 June 2019.
All research outputs
#13,557,791
of 22,982,639 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#3,020
of 8,351 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,029
of 316,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#49
of 130 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,982,639 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,351 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 316,590 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 130 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 60% of its contemporaries.