↓ Skip to main content

Enablers and barriers to using patient decision aids in early stage breast cancer consultations: a qualitative study of surgeons’ views

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 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
Enablers and barriers to using patient decision aids in early stage breast cancer consultations: a qualitative study of surgeons’ views
Published in
Implementation Science, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13012-014-0174-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mary Ann O’Brien, Cathy Charles, Peter Lovrics, Frances C Wright, Tim Whelan, Marko Simunovic, Erin Kennedy, Eva Grunfeld

Abstract

BackgroundFor early stage breast cancer, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown that patient decision aids (PtDAs), when used by surgeons, result in increased patient knowledge about options and different patient treatment choices as compared to standard care. Yet, recent data suggests that PtDAs are used by less than 25% of Canadian cancer physicians. We conducted a study to explore breast cancer surgeons¿ views on enablers and barriers to the use of PtDAs in their practice.MethodsPurposeful sampling was used to select breast cancer surgeons in three Ontario health regions to participate in semi-structured interviews. Inductive coding and the constant comparative method were used to identify the main themes.ResultsTwenty-two surgeons (79%) agreed to participate (median age, 50 years; 9 (40%) female). Surgeons practiced in academic (n¿=¿7, 32%) or community (n¿=¿15, 68%) hospitals. Fourteen surgeons were aware of PtDAs, nine had used a PtDA with patients as part of an RCT, and six had developed their own informal PtDA for use in their practice. Enablers of informal PtDA use included surgeon exposure during training and surgeon perceived need for a systematic approach when communicating risks and benefits of surgical treatments with patients. Barriers to formal PtDA use included high surgeon confidence in their verbal communication skills, surgeon belief that patients understood conveyed information, and difficulties embedding such tools in practice routines.ConclusionsSurgeons in this study valued systematic communication with patients. Several surgeons changed their practice to include formal or informal PtDAs provided they perceived there was a clear benefit to themselves or to patients. However, high surgeon confidence in their personal communications skills coupled with beliefs that patients understand conveyed information may be key barriers to PtDA uptake once surgeons have established communication routines.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 64 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 14%
Student > Master 9 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Other 12 19%
Unknown 13 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 25%
Psychology 8 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 12 19%
Unknown 17 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 December 2014.
All research outputs
#6,673,538
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,115
of 1,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,322
of 365,793 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#29
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,728 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 365,793 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 63 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 50% of its contemporaries.