↓ Skip to main content

Patient, physician, and caregiver perspectives on ovarian cancer treatment decision making: lessons from a qualitative pilot study

Overview of attention for article published in Pilot and Feasibility Studies, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
19 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
Patient, physician, and caregiver perspectives on ovarian cancer treatment decision making: lessons from a qualitative pilot study
Published in
Pilot and Feasibility Studies, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40814-018-0283-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachel Pozzar, Laura-Mae Baldwin, Barbara A. Goff, Donna L. Berry

Abstract

Ovarian cancer is the deadliest gynecologic malignancy and the fifth leading cause of cancer death among women living in the USA. Treatment for ovarian cancer that follows the guidelines published by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network is associated with a 33% decrease in disease-specific mortality, yet fewer than 40% of women with ovarian cancer receive guideline-adherent treatment. Little is known about the process by which women with ovarian cancer, their unpaid caregivers, and physicians make decisions about ovarian cancer treatment. We are planning to conduct a population-based study examining the ovarian cancer treatment decision-making process from the perspective of women with ovarian cancer, their caregivers, and physicians using a qualitative approach. Prior to embarking on a large-scale study, we determined it would be beneficial to pilot test our unpaid caregiver recruitment protocol and identify preliminary topics for the main study's interview guide. We conducted a cross-sectional descriptive study using a qualitative approach. Data were collected via unstructured, individual interviews. Data were analyzed using modified grounded theory methods. We interviewed six women with ovarian cancer, four unpaid caregivers, and three physicians. The recruitment protocol successfully recruited patient participants but did not allow for direct recruitment of unpaid caregivers, which presented logistical difficulties. The interview guide was adequate to elicit participants' discussion of the major topics of interest; however, the opening statement needed modification to account for physician participants' specialties. Patient and caregiver participants identified three major categories of concepts describing the process of ovarian cancer treatment decision making: (a) choosing a provider, (b) choosing a facility, and (c) choosing a treatment. All three groups of participants addressed the influence of geographic location on treatment decisions, while physicians described encounters with patients declining recommended treatment. This pilot study met our objectives of testing unpaid caregiver recruitment procedures and identifying topics to include in the interview guide for a planned grounded theory study. Although the thematic results of this study are preliminary, the categories of concepts described by participants provide a framework for the exploration of patient, unpaid caregiver, and physician perspectives of ovarian cancer treatment decision making.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 16%
Student > Master 2 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Lecturer 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 8 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Environmental Science 1 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 8 42%
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 21 July 2018.
All research outputs
#12,907,899
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#521
of 1,049 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,910
of 328,026 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#28
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,049 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 328,026 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.