↓ Skip to main content

Developing a digital communication training tool on information-provision in oncology: uncovering learning needs and training preferences

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
120 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
Developing a digital communication training tool on information-provision in oncology: uncovering learning needs and training preferences
Published in
BMC Medical Education, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12909-018-1308-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sebastiaan M. Stuij, Nanon H. M. Labrie, Sandra van Dulmen, Marie José Kersten, Noor Christoph, Robert L. Hulsman, Ellen Smets, on behalf of the INSTRUCT project group

Abstract

Adequate information-provision forms a crucial component of optimal cancer care. However, information-provision is particularly challenging in an oncology setting. It is therefore imperative to help oncological health care practitioners (HCP) optimise their information-giving skills. New forms of online education, i.e. e-learning, enable safe and time and location independent ways of learning, enhancing access to continuous learning for HCP. As part of a user-centred approach to developing an e-learning to improve information-giving skills, this study aims to: 1) uncover the learning needs of oncological healthcare providers related to information- provision, and 2) explore their training preferences in the context of clinical practice. Focus groups and interviews were organised with oncological HCP (medical specialists and clinical nurse specialists) addressing participants' learning needs concerning information- provision and their training preferences with respect to a new digital training tool on this issue. All sessions were audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim. Using an inductive approach, transcripts were independently coded by three researchers and discussed to reach consensus. Main themes were summarised and discussed. Four focus group sessions (total n = 13) and three interviews were conducted. The first theme concerned the patient outcomes HCP try to achieve with their information. We found HCP to mainly strive to promote patients' understanding of information. The second theme concerned HCP reported strategies and challenges when trying to inform their patients. These entailed tailoring of information to patient characteristics, structuring of information, and dealing with patients' emotions. Regarding HCP training preferences, an e-learning should be neatly connected to clinical practice. Moreover, participants desired a digital training to allow for feedback on their own (videotaped) information-giving skills from peers, communication experts, and/or patients; to monitor their progress and to tailored the training to individual learning needs. An e-learning for improvement of information-giving skills of oncological HCP should be aimed at the transfer of skills to clinical practice, rather than at enhancing knowledge. Moreover, an e-learning is probably most effective when the facilitates individual learning needs, supports feedback on competence level and improvement, and allows input from significant others (experts, peers, or patients).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 120 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 18%
Student > Bachelor 15 13%
Researcher 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Other 8 7%
Other 17 14%
Unknown 39 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 16%
Computer Science 11 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 7%
Psychology 7 6%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 38 32%
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 04 October 2018.
All research outputs
#14,425,486
of 23,103,903 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,994
of 3,387 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,994
of 340,828 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#36
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,903 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 3,387 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 340,828 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.