↓ Skip to main content

A patient perspective on shared decision making in stage I non-small cell lung cancer: a mixed methods study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, December 2015
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
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 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 patient perspective on shared decision making in stage I non-small cell lung cancer: a mixed methods study
Published in
BMC Cancer, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12885-015-1974-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wendy Hopmans, Olga C. Damman, Suresh Senan, Koen J. Hartemink, Egbert F. Smit, Danielle R. M. Timmermans

Abstract

Surgery and stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) are both curative treatment options for patients with a stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Consequently, there is growing interest in studying the role of patients in treatment decision making. We studied how patients with stage I NSCLC perceived shared decision making (SDM) in general, and how they viewed different aspects of SDM. A sequential mixed methods design was used, consisting of qualitative interviews (N = 11), as well as a survey study (N = 76) focusing on different SDM-related aspects. Participants were interviewed to understand their own experience with treatment decision making. In the survey study, patients rated the importance of 20 aspects of shared decision making that were identified during interviews. Descriptive analysis and explorative factor analysis were performed. We assessed six qualitative themes covering SDM aspects that were determined by patients to be important. The survey identified four SDM-related factors with sufficient internal consistency, namely (1) 'guidance by clinician' (α = .741), (2) 'conduct of clinician' (α = .774); (3) 'preparation for treatment decision making' (α = .864); and (4) 'active role of patient in treatment decision making' (α = .782). Of these, clinician guidance was rated as most important by patients (M = 3.61; SD = .44). Only 28.9 % of patients in the survey study reported that both treatment options were discussed with them. Patients with a stage I NSCLC found clinician guidance to be important when making treatment decisions. Nevertheless, the majority of patients reported not being offered both treatment options, which might have influenced this finding.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 81 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 12%
Researcher 10 12%
Student > Master 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Other 8 10%
Other 19 23%
Unknown 16 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Psychology 4 5%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 2%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 26 32%
Attention Score in Context

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 23 December 2015.
All research outputs
#15,352,477
of 22,836,570 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#4,113
of 8,309 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#228,888
of 390,448 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#84
of 187 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,836,570 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,309 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 390,448 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 187 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.