↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of continuing education of family health strategy teams for the early identification of suspected cases of cancer in children

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
Evaluation of continuing education of family health strategy teams for the early identification of suspected cases of cancer in children
Published in
BMC Medical Education, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12909-017-0993-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ana Maria Aranha Magalhaes Costa, Cynthia Magluta, Saint Clair Gomes Junior

Abstract

This study evaluated the influence of continuing education of family health strategy teams by the Ronald McDonald Institute program on the early diagnosis of cancer in children and adolescents. The study applied Habicht's model to evaluate the adequacy and plausibility of continuing education by using as outcome the number of children with suspected cancer who were referred to the hospital of references in the 1 year before and 1 year after intervention and the number of patients referred by intervention group and control group family health strategy teams. Medical records from each hospital of reference were used to collect information of suspect cases of cancer. Descriptive analyses were performed using frequencies and mean values. Chi-square tests were used to assess statistically significant differences between the groups and periods by using p-values < 0.05. The results showed a 30.6% increase in the number of children referred to the hospital of reference for suspected cancer in the post-intervention period; in addition, the family health strategy teams that underwent the intervention referred 3.6 times more number of children to hospital of references than did the control group. Only the intervention group showed an increase in the number of confirmed cases. This evaluation of a continuing education program for early identification of pediatric cancer showed that the program was adequate in achieving the established goals and that the results could be attributed to the program.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 19%
Student > Bachelor 7 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Researcher 3 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 14 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 13%
Psychology 3 6%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 19 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 08 September 2017.
All research outputs
#18,571,001
of 23,001,641 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#2,779
of 3,363 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,080
of 315,659 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#52
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,001,641 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,363 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 315,659 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.