↓ Skip to main content

Benefits, barriers and opinions on multidisciplinary team meetings: a survey in Swedish cancer care

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Citations

dimensions_citation
83 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
243 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
Benefits, barriers and opinions on multidisciplinary team meetings: a survey in Swedish cancer care
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-2990-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Linn Rosell, Nathalie Alexandersson, Oskar Hagberg, Mef Nilbert

Abstract

Case review and discussion at multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) have evolved into standard practice in cancer care with the aim to provide evidence-based treatment recommendations. As a basis for work to optimize the MDTMs, we investigated participants' views on the meeting function, including perceived benefits and barriers. In a cross-sectional study design, 244 health professionals from south Sweden rated MDTM meeting structure and function, benefits from these meetings and barriers to reach a treatment recommendation. The top-ranked advantages from MDTMs were support for patient management and competence development. Low ratings applied to monitoring patients for clinical trial inclusion and structured work to improve the MDTM. Nurses and cancer care coordinators did less often than physicians report involvement in the case discussions. Major benefits from MDTM were reported to be more accurate treatment recommendations, multidisciplinary evaluation and adherence to clinical guidelines. Major barriers to a joint treatment recommendation were reported to be need for supplementary investigations and insufficient pathology reports. Health professionals' report multiple benefits from MDTMs, but also define areas for improvement, e.g. access to complete information and clarified roles for the different health professions. The emerging picture suggests that structures for regular MDTM evaluations and increased focus on patient-related perspectives should be developed and implemented.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 243 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 243 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 43 18%
Student > Master 39 16%
Researcher 12 5%
Other 12 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 5%
Other 29 12%
Unknown 96 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 53 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 42 17%
Computer Science 7 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 2%
Social Sciences 6 2%
Other 31 13%
Unknown 98 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 21 June 2018.
All research outputs
#6,514,655
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,156
of 7,738 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,276
of 329,814 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#107
of 207 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,738 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 329,814 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 207 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.