| Title |
Quantitative Information on Oncology Prescription Drug Websites
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Cancer Education, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13187-016-1107-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Helen W. Sullivan, Kathryn J. Aikin, Linda B. Squiers |
| Abstract |
Our objective was to determine whether and how quantitative information about drug benefits and risks is presented to consumers and healthcare professionals on cancer-related prescription drug websites. We analyzed the content of 65 active cancer-related prescription drug websites. We assessed the inclusion and presentation of quantitative information for two audiences (consumers and healthcare professionals) and two types of information (drug benefits and risks). Websites were equally likely to present quantitative information for benefits (96.9 %) and risks (95.4 %). However, the amount of the information differed significantly: Both consumer-directed and healthcare-professional-directed webpages were more likely to have quantitative information for every benefit (consumer 38.5 %; healthcare professional 86.1 %) compared with every risk (consumer 3.1 %; healthcare professional 6.2 %). The numeric and graphic presentations also differed by audience and information type. Consumers have access to quantitative information about oncology drugs and, in particular, about the benefits of these drugs. Research has shown that using quantitative information to communicate treatment benefits and risks can increase patients' and physicians' understanding and can aid in treatment decision-making, although some numeric and graphic formats are more useful than others. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 15 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 27% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 20% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 7% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 27% |
| Unknown | 1 | 7% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 3 | 20% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 13% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 13% |
| Unknown | 3 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 18 December 2023.
All research outputs
#1,296,028
of 25,295,968 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cancer Education
#22
of 1,293 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,370
of 346,112 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cancer Education
#2
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,295,968 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,293 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 346,112 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.