↓ Skip to main content

Centralising specialist cancer surgery services in England: survey of factors that matter to patients and carers and health professionals

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
22 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
Centralising specialist cancer surgery services in England: survey of factors that matter to patients and carers and health professionals
Published in
BMC Cancer, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12885-018-4137-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mariya Melnychuk, Cecilia Vindrola-Padros, Michael Aitchison, Caroline S. Clarke, Naomi J. Fulop, Claire Levermore, Satish B. Maddineni, Caroline M. Moore, Muntzer M. Mughal, Catherine Perry, Kathy Pritchard-Jones, Angus I. G. Ramsay, David Shackley, Jonathan Vickers, Stephen Morris

Abstract

The centralisation of specialist cancer surgical services across London Cancer and Greater Manchester Cancer, England, may significantly change how patients experience care. These centres are changing specialist surgical pathways for several cancers including prostate, bladder, kidney, and oesophago-gastric cancers, increasing the specialisation of centres and providing surgery in fewer hospitals. While there are potential benefits related to centralising services, changes of this kind are often controversial. The aim of this study was to identify factors related to the centralisation of specialist surgical services that are important to patients, carers and health care professionals. This was a questionnaire-based study involving a convenience sample of patient and public involvement (PPI) and cancer health care professional (HCP) sub-groups in London and Greater Manchester (n = 186). Participants were asked to identify which of a list of factors potentially influenced by the centralisation of specialist cancer surgery were important to them and to rank these in order of importance. We ranked and shortlisted the most important factors. We obtained 52 responses (28% response rate). The factors across both groups rated most important were: highly trained staff; likelihood and severity of complications; waiting time for cancer surgery; and access to staff members from various disciplines with specialised skills in cancer. These factors were also ranked as being important separately by the PPI and HCP sub-groups. There was considerable heterogeneity in the relative ordering of factors within sub-groups and overall. This study examines and ranks factors important to patients and carers, and health care professionals in order to inform the implementation of centralisation of specialist cancer surgical services. The most important factors were similar in the two stakeholder sub-groups. Planners should consider the impact of reorganising services on these factors, and disseminate this information to patients, the public and health care professionals when deciding whether or not and how to centralise specialist cancer surgical services.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 14%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Professor 3 8%
Other 7 19%
Unknown 8 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 11%
Social Sciences 3 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 9 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 18 May 2018.
All research outputs
#1,359,388
of 15,917,147 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#243
of 5,906 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,684
of 279,082 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,917,147 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,906 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 279,082 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 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