↓ Skip to main content

Participation in lung cancer screening programs: are there gender and social differences? A systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Public Health Reviews, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#46 of 164)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
9 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
Participation in lung cancer screening programs: are there gender and social differences? A systematic review
Published in
Public Health Reviews, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40985-018-0100-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stefanie Schütte, Damien Dietrich, Xavier Montet, Antoine Flahault

Abstract

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide. A number of screening trials for early detection of lung cancer exist, using chest X-ray, low-dose computed tomography, or both. However, little is known about the socio-demographic characteristics of participants in lung cancer screening programs. As gender and socio-economic determinants are important variables to consider for successful program implementation, this review aims to characterize the participants in such programs and to investigate whether differences in representation exist across screening programs. Systematic methods were used to identify relevant studies. A search was undertaken to locate all studies published up to August 2017 assessing the socio-demographic profile of participants in lung cancer screening programs. A search strategy was developed, refined, and implemented to search in two different online databases (MEDLINE and Web of Sciences). A total of 1588 references were retrieved of which 14 were eligible for review. The results highlight differences in gender and social characteristics of participants across programs, while noting that differences may be partly explained by the various epidemiological contexts, program inclusion criteria, and socio-economic status (SES) measures collected. Most importantly, despite a well-recognized predominance of low SES among heavy smokers, people with high SES are seemingly over-represented among participants. Male participants also seem to be over-represented. These findings are important to help inform the development and implementation processes of future lung cancer screening programs, which should likely include strategies for engaging women as well as individuals with low SES and, of course, those most at risk for developing lung cancer.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Other 6 11%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Student > Master 4 8%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 16 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 21 40%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 06 May 2019.
All research outputs
#1,607,503
of 14,969,286 outputs
Outputs from Public Health Reviews
#46
of 164 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,625
of 273,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Public Health Reviews
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,969,286 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 164 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 273,503 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them