↓ Skip to main content

Advancing Survivors’ Knowledge (ASK) about skin cancer study: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
152 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
Advancing Survivors’ Knowledge (ASK) about skin cancer study: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Published in
Trials, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13063-015-0637-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Casey L Daniel, Gregory T Armstrong, Robyn R Keske, Jessica A Davine, Aaron J McDonald, Kim M Sprunck-Harrild, Catherine Coleman, Sebastien J Haneuse, Ann C Mertens, Karen M Emmons, Ashfaq A Marghoob, Elena B Elkin, Stephen W Dusza, Leslie L Robison, Alan C Geller

Abstract

Advances in treatment have increased childhood cancer 5-year survival rates to greater than 80%. However, children previously treated with radiation are at significantly increased risk of developing subsequent neoplasms, the most common of which are skin cancers. The National Cancer Institute and Children's Oncology Group have issued recommendations for survivors treated with radiation to perform monthly skin self-examinations and receive a physician skin examination at least annually, as early detection has demonstrated markedly improved outcomes in the diagnosis and treatment of skin cancers. The goal of the present study is to increase rates of skin self-examinations and clinical skin examinations among adult survivors of childhood cancer treated with radiation. This randomized controlled trial uses a 3-group comparative effectiveness design comparing: (1) Patient Activation and Education (PAE) including text messaging, print and web-based tutorials over 12 months; (2) PAE plus physician activation (PAE + MD) adding physician activation/educational materials about survivors' increased skin cancer risk and conducting full-body skin exams; and (3) PAE plus physician activation, plus teledermoscopy (PAE + MD + TD) adding participant receipt of a dermatoscope intended to empower them to photograph suspect moles or lesions for review by the study dermatologist. The current study addresses barriers to screening in this population by providing educational and motivational information for both survivors and physicians regarding the value of periodic skin examinations. It also utilizes innovative mobile health technology to encourage and motivate (that is activate) survivors to conduct skin self-examinations, request physician exams, and obtain treatment when worrisome lesions are found. Finally, as a comparative effectiveness trial, this study isolates the effects of adding specific components to the patient activation intervention to test the most effective intervention for enhancing skin examination vigilance among this high-risk group. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02046811 ; Registration date: 22 January 2014.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 151 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 15%
Student > Bachelor 18 12%
Researcher 15 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 9%
Other 31 20%
Unknown 37 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 22%
Psychology 22 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 9%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Unspecified 6 4%
Other 21 14%
Unknown 48 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 14 September 2016.
All research outputs
#1,618,150
of 8,372,629 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#656
of 2,290 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,449
of 288,430 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#41
of 122 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,372,629 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,290 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 288,430 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 122 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 66% of its contemporaries.