↓ Skip to main content

Assessment and prevention of behavioural and social risk factors associated with oral cancer: protocol for a systematic review of clinical guidelines and systematic reviews to inform Primary Care…

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
186 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
Assessment and prevention of behavioural and social risk factors associated with oral cancer: protocol for a systematic review of clinical guidelines and systematic reviews to inform Primary Care dental professionals
Published in
Systematic Reviews, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13643-015-0169-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sweta Mathur, David I. Conway, Heather Worlledge-Andrew, Lorna M.D. Macpherson, Alastair J. Ross

Abstract

Tobacco and alcohol are recognised as the major risk factors for both oral cavity (mouth) and oropharyngeal (throat) cancers, with increasing acceptance of the role of human papillomavirus (HPV) in the aetiology of oropharyngeal cancers. In addition, there is a significant increased risk for oral cancer among lower socioeconomic groups, males and older age groups. There is a growing evidence for the potential role of primary care professionals in smoking cessation and reducing alcohol-related harm. However, there are uncertainties about the best approaches/strategies to assess risk factors associated with oral cancer, effective components of preventive interventions for behaviour change and implementation strategies in primary care dental settings. Thus, in order to contribute to the prevention of oral cancer effectively, dental professionals need to assess patients on the major risk factors (tobacco, alcohol and HPV/sexual behaviours) and deliver appropriate prevention, taking into account the patient's sociodemographic context. The study aims to synthesise evidence on the best practice for undertaking an assessment of major behavioural risk factors associated with oral cancer and delivering effective behaviour change preventive interventions (e.g. advice, counselling, patient recall, signposting/referral to preventive services) by dental professionals in primary care dental settings. The study involves a systematic review and evidence appraisal. We will search for clinical guidelines and systematic reviews from the following databases: Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, PsychINFO, PubMed, TRIP and Google Scholar. We will also search websites of professional organisations/agencies and bibliographies/reference lists of selected papers. Quality will be assessed with the AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II) instrument for included clinical guidelines and the AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) and ROBIS instruments for included systematic reviews. The best practice evidence will be assessed via a narrative synthesis of extracted data, considering publication quality. This systematic review will synthesise evidence on the best practice for oral cancer risk factor assessment and prevention and evaluate the relationship between available clinical guidelines and the review evidence base. This collation of evidence will be useful for making recommendations for future intervention, research and guideline development. PROSPERO CRD42015025289.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 186 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 183 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 40 22%
Researcher 19 10%
Student > Bachelor 17 9%
Other 11 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 5%
Other 31 17%
Unknown 58 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 77 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 8%
Social Sciences 7 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 2%
Other 13 7%
Unknown 66 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 19 April 2018.
All research outputs
#6,719,214
of 22,836,570 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,212
of 1,999 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,282
of 390,618 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#36
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,836,570 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,999 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. 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 390,618 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.