↓ Skip to main content

Personalised informed choice on evidence and controversy on mammography screening: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 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
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 .

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 92 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 16%
Researcher 8 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 30 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 12%
Psychology 3 3%
Computer Science 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 36 39%

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
#8,770,375
of 15,923,805 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#2,059
of 5,912 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,007
of 269,904 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,923,805 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,912 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 269,904 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them