↓ Skip to main content

What implementation interventions increase cancer screening rates? a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, September 2011
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
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
113 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
248 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
What implementation interventions increase cancer screening rates? a systematic review
Published in
Implementation Science, September 2011
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-6-111
Pubmed ID
Authors

Melissa C Brouwers, Carol De Vito, Lavannya Bahirathan, Angela Carol, June C Carroll, Michelle Cotterchio, Maureen Dobbins, Barbara Lent, Cheryl Levitt, Nancy Lewis, S Elizabeth McGregor, Lawrence Paszat, Carol Rand, Nadine Wathen

Abstract

Appropriate screening may reduce the mortality and morbidity of colorectal, breast, and cervical cancers. However, effective implementation strategies are warranted if the full benefits of screening are to be realized. As part of a larger agenda to create an implementation guideline, we conducted a systematic review to evaluate interventions designed to increase the rate of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The interventions considered were: client reminders, client incentives, mass media, small media, group education, one-on-one education, reduction in structural barriers, reduction in out-of-pocket costs, provider assessment and feedback interventions, and provider incentives. Our primary outcome, screening completion, was calculated as the overall median post-intervention absolute percentage point (PP) change in completed screening tests.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 248 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 2%
United Kingdom 3 1%
Unknown 241 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 16%
Researcher 38 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 13%
Other 20 8%
Student > Postgraduate 16 6%
Other 50 20%
Unknown 54 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 89 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 29 12%
Psychology 20 8%
Social Sciences 20 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 3%
Other 20 8%
Unknown 63 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 16 February 2012.
All research outputs
#12,558,792
of 22,655,397 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,283
of 1,715 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,480
of 131,776 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#8
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,655,397 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,715 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 131,776 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 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.