| Title |
Is social inequality related to different patient concerns in routine oral cancer follow-up clinics?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00405-016-4208-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sarah Allen, Derek Lowe, Rebecca V. Harris, Steve Brown, Simon N. Rogers |
| Abstract |
Oral cancer has a higher incidence in the lower social strata, and these patients are less likely to engage in supportive interventions and report a poorer quality of life (QoL). The aim of this paper is to compare the Patient Concerns Inventory (PCI) responses across social groups attending routine oral cancer follow-up clinics with particular focus on the deprivation lower quartile. The PCI package is completed by patients as part of their routine review consultation with SNR. Patients were those diagnosed between 2008 and 2012. Deprivation was stratified using the IMD 2010 from postcode. Of the 106 eligible patients, 85 % used the PCI. Just over half (54 %) were living in the most deprived quartile, with two-thirds (68 %) of males in the most deprived quartile, compared with 35 % of females (p = 0.004). In regard to number and type of PCI items selected by patients at their first PCI clinic, there were no notable differences in respect of IMD classification. The two commonest concerns were fear of recurrence (43 %) and sore mouth (43 %). The most deprived quartile reported significant problems in regard to mood (p = 0.004) and recreation (p = 0.02), and a non-significant trend (36 vs 18 %, p = 0.09) in stating their overall QoL as being less than good. It is possible to identify the concerns of patients from lower socioeconomic strata as part of routine follow-up clinics. This allows for targeted multi-professional intervention and supports to improve the outcome in this hard to reach group. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 50% |
| Korea, Democratic People's Republic of | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 3 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 55 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 15% |
| Unknown | 16 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 33% |
| Psychology | 6 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Unknown | 17 | 31% |
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 28 October 2016.
All research outputs
#6,265,736
of 23,316,003 outputs
Outputs from European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
#311
of 3,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,486
of 365,834 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
#12
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,316,003 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,151 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 365,834 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.