↓ Skip to main content

Does access to a colorectal cancer screening website and/or a nurse-managed telephone help line provided to patients by their family physician increase fecal occult blood test uptake?: A pragmatic…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, May 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
179 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
Does access to a colorectal cancer screening website and/or a nurse-managed telephone help line provided to patients by their family physician increase fecal occult blood test uptake?: A pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial study protocol
Published in
BMC Cancer, May 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2407-12-182
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kathleen Clouston, Alan Katz, Patricia J Martens, Jeff Sisler, Donna Turner, Michelle Lobchuk, Susan McClement

Abstract

Fecal occult blood test screening in Canada is sub-optimal. Family physicians play a central role in screening and are limited by the time constraints of clinical practice. Patients face multiple barriers that further reduce completion rates. Tools that support family physicians in providing their patients with colorectal cancer information and that support uptake may prove useful. The primary objective of the study is to evaluate the efficacy of a patient decision aid (nurse-managed telephone support line and/or colorectal cancer screening website) distributed by community-based family physicians, in improving colorectal cancer screening rates. Secondary objectives include evaluation of (dis)incentives to patient FOBT uptake and internet use among 50 to 74 year old males and females for health-related questions. Challenges faced by family physicians in engaging in collaborative partnerships with primary healthcare researchers will be documented.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 179 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 176 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 16%
Researcher 28 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 15%
Student > Bachelor 16 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 7%
Other 32 18%
Unknown 35 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 37 21%
Social Sciences 12 7%
Psychology 8 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Other 24 13%
Unknown 42 23%

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 18 May 2012.
All research outputs
#10,995,177
of 12,372,945 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#3,696
of 4,558 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,911
of 118,568 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#26
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,372,945 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,558 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 118,568 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.