↓ Skip to main content

A prospective multiple case study of the impact of emerging scientific evidence on established colorectal cancer screening programs: a study protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, June 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 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 prospective multiple case study of the impact of emerging scientific evidence on established colorectal cancer screening programs: a study protocol
Published in
Implementation Science, June 2012
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-7-51
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hannah Geddie, Mark J Dobrow, Jeffrey S Hoch, Linda Rabeneck

Abstract

Health-policy decision making is a complex and dynamic process, for which strong evidentiary support is required. This includes scientifically produced research, as well as information that relates to the context in which the decision takes place. Unlike scientific evidence, this "contextual evidence" is highly variable and often includes information that is not scientifically produced, drawn from sources such as political judgement, program management experience and knowledge, or public values. As the policy decision-making process is variable and difficult to evaluate, it is often unclear how this heterogeneous evidence is identified and incorporated into "evidence-based policy" decisions. Population-based colorectal cancer screening poses an ideal context in which to examine these issues. In Canada, colorectal cancer screening programs have been established in several provinces over the past five years, based on the fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or the fecal immunochemical test. However, as these programs develop, new scientific evidence for screening continues to emerge. Recently published randomized controlled trials suggest that the use of flexible sigmoidoscopy for population-based screening may pose a greater reduction in mortality than the FOBT. This raises the important question of how policy makers will address this evidence, given that screening programs are being established or are already in place. This study will examine these issues prospectively and will focus on how policy makers monitor emerging scientific evidence and how both scientific and contextual evidence are identified and applied for decisions about health system improvement.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 62 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 16%
Student > Master 7 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 10%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 14 22%
Unknown 17 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 38%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Psychology 4 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Environmental Science 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 22 35%
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 07 June 2012.
All research outputs
#15,245,883
of 22,668,244 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,550
of 1,717 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,791
of 165,322 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#33
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,668,244 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 1,717 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 165,322 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 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.