↓ Skip to main content

Patient representatives’ views on patient information in clinical cancer trials

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
Patient representatives’ views on patient information in clinical cancer trials
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1272-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pia Dellson, Mef Nilbert, Christina Carlsson

Abstract

Patient enrolment into clinical trials is based on oral information and informed consent, which includes an information sheet and a consent certificate. The written information should be complete, but at the same time risks being so complex that it may be questioned if a fully informed consent is possible to provide. We explored patient representatives' views and perceptions on the written trial information used in clinical cancer trials. Written patient information leaflets used in four clinical trials for colorectal cancer were used for the study. The trials included phase I-III trials, randomized and non-randomized trials that evaluated chemotherapy/targeted therapy in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant and palliative settings. Data were collected through focus groups and were analysed using inductive content analysis. Two major themes emerged: emotional responses and cognitive responses. Subthemes related to the former included individual preferences and perceptions of effect, while subthemes related to the latter were comprehensibility and layout. Based on these observations the patient representatives provided suggestions for improvement, which largely included development of future simplified and more attractive informed consent forms. The emotional and cognitive responses to written patient information reported by patient representatives provides a basis for revised formats in future trials and add to the body of information that support use of plain language, structured text and illustrations to improve the informed consent process and thereby patient enrolment into clinical trials.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Other 1 3%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 3%
Unknown 26 87%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 7%
Linguistics 1 3%
Engineering 1 3%
Unknown 26 87%

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 07 April 2016.
All research outputs
#3,094,729
of 11,320,109 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,416
of 3,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,296
of 344,903 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#38
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,320,109 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,587 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
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 344,903 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 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 53% of its contemporaries.