↓ Skip to main content

Understanding older women’s decision making and coping in the context of breast cancer treatment

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 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
Understanding older women’s decision making and coping in the context of breast cancer treatment
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12911-015-0167-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kate J Lifford, Jana Witt, Maria Burton, Karen Collins, Lisa Caldon, Adrian Edwards, Malcolm Reed, Lynda Wyld, Kate Brain

Abstract

Primary endocrine therapy (PET) is a recognised alternative to surgery followed by endocrine therapy for a subset of older, frailer women with breast cancer. Choice of treatment is preference-sensitive and may require decision support. Older patients are often conceptualised as passive decision-makers. The present study used the Coping in Deliberation (CODE) framework to gain insight into decision making and coping processes in a group of older women who have faced breast cancer treatment decisions, and to inform the development of a decision support intervention (DSI). Semi-structured interviews were carried out with older women who had been offered a choice of PET or surgery from five UK hospital clinics. Women's information and support needs, their breast cancer diagnosis and treatment decisions were explored. A secondary analysis of these interviews was conducted using the CODE framework to examine women's appraisals of health threat and coping throughout the deliberation process. Interviews with 35 women aged 75-98 years were analysed. Appraisals of breast cancer and treatment options were sometimes only partial, with most women forming a preference for treatment relatively quickly. However, a number of considerations which women made throughout the deliberation process were identified, including: past experiences of cancer and its treatment; scope for choice; risks, benefits and consequences of treatment; instincts about treatment choice; and healthcare professionals' recommendations. Women also described various strategies to cope with breast cancer and their treatment decisions. These included seeking information, obtaining practical and emotional support from healthcare professionals, friends and relatives, and relying on personal faith. Based on these findings, key questions were identified that women may ask during deliberation. Many older women with breast cancer may be considered involved rather than passive decision-makers, and may benefit from DSIs designed to support decision making and coping within and beyond the clinic setting.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Portugal 1 1%
Unknown 85 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 17%
Student > Master 13 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Student > Postgraduate 5 6%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 21 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 16%
Psychology 11 13%
Arts and Humanities 2 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 28 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 23 October 2015.
All research outputs
#14,102,908
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1,006
of 2,030 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#129,662
of 268,861 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#16
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,030 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 268,861 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 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 55% of its contemporaries.