↓ Skip to main content

Exploring clinicians’ attitudes about using aspirin for risk reduction in people with Lynch Syndrome with no personal diagnosis of colorectal cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Familial Cancer, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
Title
Exploring clinicians’ attitudes about using aspirin for risk reduction in people with Lynch Syndrome with no personal diagnosis of colorectal cancer
Published in
Familial Cancer, September 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10689-016-9933-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yanni Chen, Michelle Peate, Rajneesh Kaur, Bettina Meiser, Tim Wong, Judy Kirk, Robyn L. Ward, Annabel Goodwin, Finlay Macrae, Janet Hiller, Alison H. Trainer, Gillian Mitchell

Abstract

Recent research has shown that aspirin reduces the risk of cancers associated with Lynch Syndrome. However, uncertainty exists around the optimal dosage, treatment duration and whether the benefits of aspirin as a risk-reducing medication (RRM) outweigh adverse medication related side-effects. Little is known about clinicians' attitudes, current practice, and perceived barriers to recommending aspirin as a RRM. To explore the attitudes of clinicians who discuss risk management options with patients with Lynch Syndrome towards using aspirin as a RRM. Clinicians were invited through professional organisations to complete an online survey. Topics included their clinical experience with Lynch Syndrome, views and practice of recommending aspirin as a RRM, and knowledge about clinical risk management guidelines for Lynch Syndrome. Comparison of attitudes was made between three professional groups. 181 respondents were included in the analysis: 59 genetics professionals (genetic counsellors and clinical geneticists, medical oncologists with specialist training in familial cancer), 49 gastroenterologists and 73 colorectal surgeons. Most clinicians (76 %) considered aspirin to be an effective RRM and most (72 %) were confident about discussing it. In all professional categories, those who were confident about discussing aspirin with patients perceived it to be an effective RRM (OR = 2.8 [95 % CI = 1.8-4.2], p < 0.001). Eighty percent (47/59) of genetics professionals reported having discussed the use of aspirin with Lynch Syndrome patients compared to 69 % of gastroenterologists and 68 % of colorectal surgeons. Those who considered aspirin as an effective RRM or who felt confident in their knowledge of the aspirin literature were more likely (OR = 10 [95 % CI = 1.5-65], p = 0.010, OR = 6 [95 % CI = 2.2-16], p < 0.001, respectively) to discuss it with their patients than other professionals in the study. Similarly health professionals who felt confident in their knowledge of literature of aspirin/confident in discussing with the patients were more likely (OR = 6 [95 % CI = 2.2-16], p < 0.001) to discuss with their patients. Health professionals who saw more than ten patients with Lynch Syndrome per year were more likely to be confident in their knowledge of the aspirin literature and discussing it with patients (OR = 4.1 [95 % CI = 1.6-10.2], p = 0.003). Explicit recommendations to take aspirin, was reported by 65/83 (78 %) of health professionals. Eighty-seven percent of health professionals reported a need for patient educational materials about aspirin. Continuing training is needed to increase clinicians' confidence in their knowledge of the literature on the use of aspirin as a RRM. Patient education materials may be helpful in improving consistency in patient care and facilitate communication between clinicians and people living with Lynch Syndrome.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 52 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Student > Master 6 11%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Other 11 21%
Unknown 16 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 32%
Psychology 4 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 19 36%
Attention Score in Context

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 02 November 2016.
All research outputs
#12,967,131
of 22,890,496 outputs
Outputs from Familial Cancer
#240
of 558 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,215
of 322,819 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Familial Cancer
#6
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,890,496 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 558 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 322,819 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.