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 |
ColoNav: patient navigation for colorectal cancer screening in deprived areas – Study protocol
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Cancer, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12885-016-2469-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
C. Allary, A. Bourmaud, F. Tinquaut, M. Oriol, J. Kalecinski, V. Dutertre, N. Lechopier, M. Pommier, Y. Benoist, S. Rousseau, V. Regnier, V. Buthion, F. Chauvin |
| Abstract |
The mass colorectal cancer screening program was implemented in 2008 in France, targeting 16 million French people aged between 50 and 74. The current adhesion is insufficient and the participation rate is even lower among the underserved population, increasing health inequalities within our health care system. Patient Navigation programs have proved their efficiency to promote the access to cancer screening and diagnosis. The purpose of the study is to assess the implementation of a patient navigation intervention that has been described in another cultural environment and another health care system. The main objective of the program is to increase the colorectal cancer screening participation rate among the deprived population through the intervention of a navigator to promote the Fecal Occult Blood Test (FOBT) and complementary exams. We performed a multisite cluster randomized controlled trial, with three groups (one experimental group and two control groups) for 18 months. The study attempts to give a better understanding of the adhesion barriers to colorectal cancer screening among underserved populations. If this project is cost-effective, it could create a dynamic based on peer approaches that could be developed for other cancer screening programs and other chronic diseases. NCT02369757. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 79 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 16% |
| Researcher | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 13 | 16% |
| Unknown | 27 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 16% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Psychology | 2 | 3% |
| Decision Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Unknown | 30 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 08 July 2016.
All research outputs
#12,843,653
of 22,880,230 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#2,695
of 8,325 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,471
of 355,364 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#53
of 255 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,230 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,325 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 355,364 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 255 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.