↓ Skip to main content

ColoNav: patient navigation for colorectal cancer screening in deprived areas – Study protocol

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 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
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters 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 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 16%
Student > Master 8 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Other 4 7%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 15 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 18%
Psychology 3 5%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Decision Sciences 2 4%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 18 32%

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
#3,179,280
of 8,029,393 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#773
of 3,425 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,026
of 260,077 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#33
of 231 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,029,393 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 60th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,425 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 260,077 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 231 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.