↓ Skip to main content

Micro actions in colorectal cancer screening participation: a population-based survey study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
Micro actions in colorectal cancer screening participation: a population-based survey study
Published in
BMC Cancer, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12885-015-1465-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Siu Hing Lo, Jo Waller, Charlotte Vrinten, Christian von Wagner

Abstract

Low uptake of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is a cause for concern. This study explored people's anticipated response to receiving the test kit to shed light on past screening uptake and help inform future interventions to increase participation. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with respondents living in England who were eligible for CRC screening as part of a population-based 'omnibus' survey. Respondents were asked what they would do ('micro actions') if they received a CRC screening test kit through the mail (apart from completing it or not), and their unprompted responses were coded (multiple codes allowed). Past 'ever' uptake and screening intention were also recorded. The final analysis included 1237 respondents aged 60-70. Respondents who said that they would decide after some thought' (p < .001), 'put [it] aside to deal with later' (p < .001), 'put it on the "to do list/ pile"' (p < .05) or 'discuss it with a health care professional' (p < .01) had decreased odds of having participated. Those who said they would 'read the instruction leaflet' (p < .001), 'put the kit near the toilet' (p < .001) or 'decide when to do the test' (p < .05) were more likely to have taken part in CRC screening. With the exception of 'decide when to do the test' and 'discuss it with a health care professional', all associations with past uptake remained significant after adjusting for other micro actions and screening intention. 'Make a note somewhere (to remind myself)' was mentioned by less than 1 % of respondents. Delay-causing and preparatory micro actions were associated with past CRC screening uptake. Self-regulatory micro actions (e.g. making a note to remind oneself) were rarely mentioned as responses to receiving a screening invitation. Interventions aimed at reducing delay and facilitating preparatory and self-regulatory behaviours might help increase uptake. The behaviour-focused survey method is a promising avenue for future health behaviour research.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 24%
Researcher 4 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Other 5 20%
Unknown 4 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 6 24%
Psychology 5 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 12%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 36%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 02 September 2015.
All research outputs
#809,496
of 5,581,516 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#205
of 2,981 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,018
of 180,803 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#25
of 212 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,581,516 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,981 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 180,803 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 212 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.