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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
RESTORE: an exploratory trial of a web-based intervention to enhance self-management of cancer-related fatigue: findings from a qualitative process evaluation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12911-015-0214-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michelle Myall, Carl R. May, Chloe Grimmett, Christine M. May, Lynn Calman, Alison Richardson, Claire L. Foster |
| Abstract |
Cancer-related fatigue is a distressing symptom experienced by many after cancer treatment. An exploratory randomised controlled trial was conducted to test proof of concept of RESTORE: a web-based tool to enhance self-efficacy to manage cancer-related fatigue. This paper reports findings from a qualitative process evaluation to determine feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and trial processes. Qualitative process evaluation carried out at the end of the trial to explore participants' experiences using semi-structured telephone interviews with a purposive sample of participants from both trial arms. Normalisation Process Theory informed data collection and analysis. Analysis involved directed content analysis within a Framework Approach. Nineteen participants took part. They understood the purpose and requirements of the trial and identified beneficial outcomes from taking part. For the majority, the work of the trial was easily accommodated into daily routines and did not require new skills. There were mixed views about the value of the information provided by RESTORE, depending on time since diagnosis and treatment. Personal factors, constraints of the intervention, and environmental context inhibited the integration and embedding of RESTORE into everyday life. Access to the intervention at an early stage in the treatment trajectory was important to effective utilisation, as were individual preferences for delivery of information. The theoretical foundations of the intervention were sound. Participants derived benefits from the intervention but barriers to implementation and integration suggest that RESTORE and the trial processes require some modification before testing in a full trial. ISRCTN67521059 (10(th) October 2012). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 171 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| Finland | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Puerto Rico | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 166 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 35 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 20 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 15 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 9% |
| Other | 22 | 13% |
| Unknown | 43 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 33 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 29 | 17% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 16 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 11 | 6% |
| Other | 19 | 11% |
| Unknown | 44 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 22 March 2016.
All research outputs
#17,554,906
of 25,738,558 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1,419
of 2,157 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#175,667
of 293,218 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#32
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,738,558 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,157 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 293,218 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.