↓ Skip to main content

Promoting prompt help-seeking for symptoms – assessing the impact of a gynaecological cancer leaflet on presentations to primary care: a record-based randomised control trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, August 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 (78th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 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
Promoting prompt help-seeking for symptoms – assessing the impact of a gynaecological cancer leaflet on presentations to primary care: a record-based randomised control trial
Published in
BMC Public Health, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-5920-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jackie Campbell, Kirty Vaghela, Stephen Rogers, Michelle Pyer, Alice Simon, Jo Waller

Abstract

Information leaflets have been shown to significantly improve awareness of the symptoms of gynaecological cancers and to reduce perceived barriers to seeking medical help. This record-based, parallel, randomised control trial study aimed to assess whether receipt of a leaflet would change the behaviour of women experiencing symptoms indicative of gynaecological cancers by prompting them to visit their general practitioner (GP). 15,538 women aged 40 years or over registered with five general practices in Northamptonshire, UK were randomised to two groups using the SystmOne randomise facility. Those in the intervention group received an educational leaflet from their general practice explaining the symptoms of gynaecological cancers and advising symptomatic women to visit their GP. The control group were not contacted. Electronic records were interrogated to extract sociodemographic data and details of GP consultations for symptoms, tests, referrals and diagnoses relating to gynaecological cancers in the 4-month period following the mail-out of the leaflets. 7739 records were extracted from the intervention group and 7799 from the control group. 231 (3.0%) of the women in the intervention group, and 207 (2.7%) of the controls, presented to their GP with a relevant symptom during the 4-month period following leaflet distribution. The slightly higher rate in the intervention group did not reach statistical significance at the 5% level (RR = 1.11; 95% CI 0.92-1.33; z = 1.08; p = 0.28). There was a significantly lower mean time to first presentation in the symptomatic intervention group (57.2 days, sd = 36.5) compared to the control group (65.2 days, sd = 35.0) (t = - 2.415; p = 0.016). Survival analysis did not reveal a difference between the patterns of presentation in the two cohorts (Log Rank (Mantel-Cox) χ2 = 1.42; p = 0.23). There was no difference between intervention and control groups in the proportion of women presenting with symptoms identified in the leaflet in the four months following leaflet distribution, although the women who had been sent a leaflet presented earlier than those in the control group. A larger study is needed to test for a modest effect of leaflet distribution. Listed on the ISRCTN registry with study ID ISRCTN61738692 on 23-8-2017 (retrospectively registered).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Researcher 4 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 20 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 12%
Psychology 4 8%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Sports and Recreations 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 19 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 20 August 2018.
All research outputs
#3,728,305
of 23,099,576 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#4,101
of 15,063 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,418
of 331,387 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#106
of 295 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,099,576 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,063 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. 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 331,387 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 295 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 63% of its contemporaries.