| Title |
Visual Aids for Multimodal Treatment Options to Support Decision Making of Patients with Colorectal Cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, October 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6947-12-118 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sabine Hofmann, Janina Vetter, Christiane Wachter, Doris Henne-Bruns, Franz Porzsolt, Marko Kornmann |
| Abstract |
A variety of multimodal treatment options are available for colorectal cancer and many patients want to be involved in decisions about their therapies. However, their desire for autonomy is limited by lack of disease-specific knowledge. Visual aids may be helpful tools to present complex data in an easy-to-understand, graphic form to lay persons. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the treatment preferences of healthy persons and patients using visual aids depicting multimodal treatment options for colorectal cancer. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 States | 2 | 50% |
| India | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Denmark | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 87 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 15% |
| Researcher | 13 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 10% |
| Other | 9 | 10% |
| Other | 11 | 12% |
| Unknown | 16 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 11% |
| Psychology | 7 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 14 | 15% |
| Unknown | 22 | 24% |
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 27 October 2012.
All research outputs
#13,023,610
of 22,684,168 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#914
of 1,979 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,812
of 183,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#25
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,684,168 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,979 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 183,408 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.