↓ Skip to main content

A protocol for an updated and expanded systematic mixed studies review of fear of cancer recurrence in families and caregivers of adults diagnosed with cancer

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
27 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 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
A protocol for an updated and expanded systematic mixed studies review of fear of cancer recurrence in families and caregivers of adults diagnosed with cancer
Published in
Systematic Reviews, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13643-018-0795-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stuart Leske, Allan Ben Smith, Sylvie D. Lambert, Afaf Girgis

Abstract

Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is reportedly common, persistent, associated with significant morbidity and often higher in cancer caregivers than cancer patients. This review will summarise empirical research on FCR to understand its prevalence, severity, correlates, course and impact in families and caregivers of adults diagnosed with cancer, and identify tested interventions that reduce its effects. This review will include peer-reviewed, empirical, qualitative and/or quantitative studies on fear, worry or concern of patients' cancer returning or progressing among adult family members or caregivers of the cancer patient. It will exclude records reporting no original empirical research on FCR. We will search CINAHL, Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses GLOBAL from 1997 onwards. Pairs of reviewers will conduct independent screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. Risk of bias will be assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomised studies, the Risk of Bias Assessment tool for Nonrandomized Studies and the questions for qualitative studies in the mixed methods appraisal tool. We will conduct a narrative synthesis of quantitative studies and a thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. This review will provide further clarity on the prevalence and severity of FCR in families and caregivers and differences by caregiver and care recipient demographic and medical characteristics. Any intervention studies located may indicate therapies or treatments that could reduce FCR in families and caregivers. Findings are expected to provide guidance for individuals and organisations working to manage FCR in families and caregivers of those with cancer. This protocol will be registered with PROSPERO after peer-review.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 16%
Student > Postgraduate 4 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Researcher 2 6%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 9 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 7 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 12 38%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 15 January 2021.
All research outputs
#1,221,972
of 20,470,279 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#197
of 1,794 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,531
of 293,488 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,470,279 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,794 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 293,488 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 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