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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Implementation of a patient decision aid for men with localized prostate cancer: evaluation of patient outcomes and practice variation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13012-016-0451-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dawn Stacey, Monica Taljaard, Jennifer Smylie, Laura Boland, Rodney H. Breau, Meg Carley, Kunal Jana, Larry Peckford, Terry Blackmore, Marian Waldie, Robert Chi Wu, France Legare |
| Abstract |
Men with localized prostate cancer often have unrealistic expectations. Practitioners are poor judges of men's preferences, contributing to preference misdiagnosis and unwarranted practice variation. Patient decision aids (PtDAs) can support men with decisions about localized prostate cancer. This is a comparative case study of two strategies for implementing PtDAs in clinical pathways for men with localized prostate cancer, evaluating (a) PtDA use; (b) impact on men, practitioners, and health system outcomes; and (c) factors influencing sustained use. Guided by the Knowledge to Action Framework, this comparative case study will be conducted using administrative data, interviews, and surveys. Cases will be bound by geographic location (one hospital in Ontario; province of Saskatchewan) and time. Eligible participants will be all men newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, with outcomes assessed using administrative data and interviews. Nurses, urologists, radiation oncologists, and managers will be surveyed and a smaller sample interviewed. Cases will be established for each setting with findings compared across cases. Changes in the proportions of men given the PtDA over 2 years will be determined from administrative data. Factors associated with receiving the PtDA will be explored using multivariable logistic regression analysis. To assess the impact of the PtDA, outcomes will be described using mean and standard deviation (men's decisional conflict) and frequency and proportions (practitioners consulted, uptake of treatment). To estimate the effect of the PtDA on these outcomes, adjusted mean differences and odds ratios will be calculated using exploratory multivariable general linear regression and binary or multinomial logistic regression. Factors influencing sustained PtDA use will be assessed using descriptive analysis of survey findings and thematic analysis of interview transcripts. Determining how to embed PtDAs effectively within clinical pathways for men with localized prostate cancer is essential. PtDAs have the potential to strengthen men's active role in making prostate cancer decisions, enhance uptake of shared decision-making by practitioners, and reduce practice variation. Our team of researchers and knowledge users will use findings to improve current PtDA use and consider scaling-up implementation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 25% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 13% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 75% |
| Scientists | 1 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 114 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 21 | 18% |
| Unspecified | 15 | 13% |
| Researcher | 13 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 24 | 21% |
| Unknown | 21 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 24% |
| Unspecified | 15 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 12% |
| Psychology | 6 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 16 | 14% |
| Unknown | 31 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 July 2016.
All research outputs
#6,403,954
of 23,321,213 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,091
of 1,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,134
of 352,427 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#25
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,321,213 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 1,728 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 352,427 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.