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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Comparison of patient preferences for fecal immunochemical test or colonoscopy using the analytic hierarchy process
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, April 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12913-015-0841-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yinghui Xu, Barcey T Levy, Jeanette M Daly, George R Bergus, Jeffrey C Dunkelberg |
| Abstract |
In average-risk individuals aged 50 to 75 years, there is no difference in life-years gained when comparing colonoscopy every 10 years vs. annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for colorectal cancer screening. Little is known about the preferences of patients when they have experienced both tests. The study was conducted with 954 patients from the University of Iowa Hospital and Clinics during 2010 to 2011. Patients scheduled for a colonoscopy were asked to complete a FIT before the colonoscopy preparation. Following both tests, patients completed a questionnaire which was based on an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) decision-making model. In the AHP analysis, the test accuracy was given the highest priority (0.457), followed by complications (0.321), and test preparation (0.223). Patients preferred colonoscopy (0.599) compared with FIT (0.401) when considering accuracy; preferred FIT (0.589) compared with colonoscopy (0.411) when considering avoiding complications; and preferred FIT (0.650) compared with colonoscopy (0.350) when considering test preparation. The overall aggregated priorities were 0.517 for FIT, and 0.483 for colonoscopy, indicating patients slightly preferred FIT over colonoscopy. Patients' preferences were significantly different before and after provision of detailed information on test features (p < 0.0001). AHP analysis showed that patients slightly preferred FIT over colonoscopy. The information provided to patients strongly affected patient preference. Patients' test preferences should be considered when ordering a colorectal cancer screening test. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 51 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 14% |
| Researcher | 7 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Unknown | 16 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 10% |
| Psychology | 3 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Unknown | 20 | 39% |
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 19 April 2017.
All research outputs
#4,493,329
of 22,817,213 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,104
of 7,636 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,537
of 265,302 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#26
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,817,213 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,636 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 265,302 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 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 72% of its contemporaries.