↓ Skip to main content

Trends in lung cancer emergency presentation in England, 2006–2013: is there a pattern by general practice?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, May 2018
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 (72nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 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
Trends in lung cancer emergency presentation in England, 2006–2013: is there a pattern by general practice?
Published in
BMC Cancer, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12885-018-4476-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Camille Maringe, Nora Pashayan, Francisco Javier Rubio, George Ploubidis, Stephen W. Duffy, Bernard Rachet, Rosalind Raine

Abstract

Emergency presentations (EP) represent over a third of all lung cancer admissions in England. Such presentations usually reflect late stage disease and are associated with poor survival. General practitioners (GPs) act as gate-keepers to secondary care and so we sought to understand the association between GP practice characteristics and lung cancer EP. Data on general practice characteristics were extracted for all practices in England from the Quality Outcomes Framework, the Health and Social Care Information Centre, the GP Patient Survey, the Cancer Commissioning Toolkit and the area deprivation score for each practice. After linking these data to lung cancer patient registrations in 2006-2013, we explored trends in three types of EP, patient-led, GP-led and 'other', by general practice characteristics and by socio-demographic characteristics of patients. Overall proportions of lung cancer EP decreased from 37.9% in 2006 to 34.3% in 2013. Proportions of GP-led EP nearly halved during this period, from 28.3 to 16.3%, whilst patient-led emergency presentations rose from 62.1 to 66.7%. When focusing on practice-specific levels of EP, 14% of general practices had higher than expected proportions of EP at least once in 2006-13, but there was no evidence of clustering of patients within practice, meaning that none of the practice characteristics examined explained differing proportions of EP by practice. We found that the high proportion of lung cancer EP is not the result of a few practices with very abnormal patterns of EP, but of a large number of practices susceptible to reaching high proportions of EP. This suggests a system-wide issue, rather than problems with specific practices. High proportions of lung cancer EP are mainly the result of patient-initiated attendances in A&E. Our results demonstrate that interventions to encourage patients not to bypass primary care must be system wide rather than targeted at specific practices.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 17%
Student > Bachelor 7 15%
Researcher 6 13%
Lecturer 3 6%
Other 3 6%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 14 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 19%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 14 29%
Attention Score in Context

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 30 August 2018.
All research outputs
#4,935,366
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#1,257
of 8,483 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,632
of 333,300 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#35
of 179 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,483 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 333,300 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 179 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.