↓ Skip to main content

Factors associated with the achievement of cervical smears by general practitioners

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 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
Factors associated with the achievement of cervical smears by general practitioners
Published in
BMC Research Notes, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13104-017-2999-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michaël Rochoy, Thibaut Raginel, Jonathan Favre, Estelle Soueres, Nassir Messaadi, Valérie Deken, Alain Duhamel, Christophe Berkhout

Abstract

Reliable data about general practitioners performing pap-tests are insufficient. A claim code for the achievement of pap-smears exists in France, but its use by general practitioners is not known. The main purpose of this study was to highlight independent factors associated with the achievement of pap-smears by the general practitioner (GP). We carried out a descriptive and analytic epidemiologic study in 347 GPs and their 244,889 patients, registered at the Health Care Insurance Fund of Flanders. The European Deprivation Index (EDI) in the area of GP's surgeries was specified. All GPs were questioned by telephone about their performance of pap-tests. The claim database of the insurance fund was analyzed to describe characteristics of GPs. The answer rate among questioned GPs was 98.8%. Pap-smears were performed in their surgeries by 182 GPs (53.1%). Among males, 45.7% performed pap-smears versus 78.4% of the female (adjusted odds-ratio = 4.5, p < 0.001). The mean rate of screened women in the target population was 44% when GPs were performing smears versus 42% when they were not (adjusted odds-ratio = 1.04, p = 0.03). Only 19.5% of GPs used the claim code. The number of patients, and the EDI were not associated with pap-smears. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02749110 (April 22, 2016).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 3 18%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Professor 1 6%
Student > Master 1 6%
Researcher 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 10 59%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 29%
Social Sciences 1 6%
Sports and Recreations 1 6%
Unknown 10 59%
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 03 January 2024.
All research outputs
#6,818,441
of 23,861,036 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#1,035
of 4,340 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#132,300
of 445,809 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#41
of 197 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,861,036 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 4,340 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 445,809 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 197 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.