↓ Skip to main content

Protocol for a longitudinal mixed methods realist evaluation of holistic needs assessment and care planning for people affected by cancer

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 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
Protocol for a longitudinal mixed methods realist evaluation of holistic needs assessment and care planning for people affected by cancer
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-3373-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lucy Johnston, Karen Campbell

Abstract

In 2012, approximately 14 million new cases of cancer were diagnosed. As a result of advances in treatment, screening and prevention programmes the number of people surviving cancer globally is also increasing. The growing understanding of the diversity and scale of the need for support, compounded by the increasing prevalence of cancer survivors has fuelled the development and evaluation of a range of services and models to meet them. A key intervention is the holistic needs assessment and care planning, however there is little homogeneity in its actual delivery to cancer survivors. To fill this evidence gap there is a need to understand any effect implementation variables have on patient experiences, measurable outcomes and resource use. We are exploring this through a realist evaluation of holistic needs assessment and care planning. This longitudinal, mixed method realist evaluation has been approached in 4 phases. Phases 1 and 2 have been completed (2014-2017) and a summary of this work is presented. We then provide a detailed protocol for Phases 3 and 4 (2017 onwards). Phase 1: Establishment of programme theory for HNA and care planning; Phase 2: Exploration and documentation of local programme theories; Phase 3: Theory testing and refinement and Phase 4 - Theory validation and dissemination. Phase 3 draws on a range of data derived from 6 study sites. Methods include analysis of patient characteristics and concerns identified, qualitative interviews /fieldwork with local project staff, national stakeholders, professionals using the needs assessment tool and patients, a three-year longitudinal online survey of wider programme stakeholders and a review and synthesis of local project evaluations and patient care plans. This intervention is a key component globally of cancer survivorship care. The results of this realist evaluation can be used to optimise the delivery and development of HNA and care planning for people affected by cancer. To our knowledge this is the first study of this type. By utilising the discipline of Realistic Evaluation this mixed methods study will elicit findings with greater potential for generalisability and transferability within Scotland, the UK and beyond.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 12%
Researcher 5 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 12%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 3 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 14 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 22%
Social Sciences 5 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 5%
Psychology 2 5%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 16 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 04 September 2018.
All research outputs
#6,241,477
of 23,342,664 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,899
of 7,816 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,330
of 329,785 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#122
of 218 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,342,664 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,816 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 329,785 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 218 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.