↓ Skip to main content

Family history assessment for colorectal cancer (CRC) risk analysis - comparison of diagram- and questionnaire-based web interfaces

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 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
Family history assessment for colorectal cancer (CRC) risk analysis - comparison of diagram- and questionnaire-based web interfaces
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12911-015-0211-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Schultz, Steven Bohwan Seo, Alec Holt, Holger Regenbrecht

Abstract

Colorectal cancer (CRC) has a high incidence, especially in New Zealand. The reasons for this are unknown. While most cancers develop sporadically, a positive family history, determined by the number and age at diagnosis of affected first and second degree relatives with CRC is one of the major factors, which may increase an individual's lifetime risk. Before a patient can be enrolled in a surveillance program a detailed assessment and documentation of the family history is important but time consuming and often inaccurate. The documentation is usually paper-based. Our aim was therefore to develop and validate the usability and efficacy of a web-based family history assessment tool for CRC suitable for the general population. The tool was also to calculate the risk and make a recommendation for surveillance. Two versions of an electronic assessment tool, diagram-based and questionnaire-based, were developed with the risk analysis and recommendations for surveillance based on the New Zealand Guidelines Group recommendations. Accuracy of our tool was tested prior to the study by comparing risk calculations based on family history by experienced gastroenterologists with the electronic assessment. The general public, visiting a local science fair were asked to use and comment on the usability of the two interfaces. Ninety people assessed and commented on the two interfaces. Both interfaces were effective in assessing the risk to develop CRC through their familial history for CRC. However, the questionnaire-based interface performed with significantly better satisfaction (p = 0.001) than the diagram-based interface. There was no difference in efficacy though. We conclude that a web-based questionnaire tool can assist in the accurate documentation and analysis of the family history relevant to determine the individual risk of CRC based on local guidelines. The calculator is now implemented and assessable through the web-page of a local charity for colorectal cancer awareness and integral part of the local general practitioners' e-referral system for colonic imaging.

X Demographics

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.
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 %
Researcher 14 34%
Student > Master 6 15%
Student > Postgraduate 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 6 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 12%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Computer Science 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 11 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 November 2015.
All research outputs
#14,241,439
of 22,833,393 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1,102
of 1,989 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#201,653
of 386,431 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#27
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,833,393 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,989 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 386,431 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.