↓ Skip to main content

A pilot, multisite, randomized controlled trial of a self-directed coping skills training intervention for couples facing prostate cancer: accrual, retention, and data collection issues

Overview of attention for article published in Supportive Care in Cancer, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
Title
A pilot, multisite, randomized controlled trial of a self-directed coping skills training intervention for couples facing prostate cancer: accrual, retention, and data collection issues
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer, July 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00520-015-2833-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sylvie D. Lambert, Patrick McElduff, Afaf Girgis, Janelle V. Levesque, Tim W. Regan, Jane Turner, Hayley Candler, Cathrine Mihalopoulos, Sophy T. F. Shih, Karen Kayser, Peter Chong

Abstract

To examine the acceptability of the methods used to evaluate Coping-Together, one of the first self-directed coping skill intervention for couples facing cancer, and to collect preliminary efficacy data. Forty-two couples, randomized to a minimal ethical care (MEC) condition or to Coping-Together, completed a survey at baseline and 2 months after, a cost diary, and a process evaluation phone interview. One hundred seventy patients were referred to the study. However, 57 couples did not meet all eligibility criteria, and 51 refused study participation. On average, two to three couples were randomized per month, and on average it took 26 days to enrol a couple in the study. Two couples withdrew from MEC, none from Coping-Together. Only 44 % of the cost diaries were completed, and 55 % of patients and 60 % of partners found the surveys too long, and this despite the follow-up survey being five pages shorter than the baseline one. Trends in favor of Coping-Together were noted for both patients and their partners. This study identified the challenges of conducting dyadic research, and a number of suggestions were put forward for future studies, including to question whether distress screening was necessary and what kind of control group might be more appropriate in future studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 82 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 21%
Student > Master 11 13%
Student > Bachelor 10 12%
Researcher 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 14 17%
Unknown 16 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 19 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 16%
Psychology 11 13%
Social Sciences 6 7%
Computer Science 3 4%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 20 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 10 January 2018.
All research outputs
#18,469,995
of 22,886,568 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#3,592
of 4,595 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,902
of 234,783 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#60
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,886,568 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,595 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 234,783 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.