↓ Skip to main content

Barriers to lung cancer care: health professionals’ perspectives

Overview of attention for article published in Supportive Care in Cancer, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Barriers to lung cancer care: health professionals’ perspectives
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer, October 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00520-016-3428-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. Dunn, G. Garvey, P. C. Valery, D. Ball, K. M. Fong, S. Vinod, D. L. O’Connell, S. K. Chambers

Abstract

Globally, lung cancer is the most common cancer and the leading cause of cancer death. Problematically, there is a wide variation in the management and survival for people with lung cancer and there is limited understanding of the reasons for these variations. To date, the views of health professionals across relevant disciplines who deliver such care are largely absent. The present study describes Australian health professionals' views about barriers to lung cancer care to help build a research and action agenda for improving lung cancer outcomes. Qualitative semi-structured interviews were undertaken with a multidisciplinary group of 31 Australian health professionals working in lung cancer care for an average of 16 years (range 1-35 yrs.; SD = 10.2) seeing a mean of 116 patients annually. Three superordinate themes were identified: illness representations, cultural influences, and health system context. Illness representations included three themes: symptoms attributed as smoking-related but not cancer, health-related stigma, and therapeutic nihilism. Cultural influence themes included Indigenous health care preferences, language and communication, and sociodemographic factors. Health system context included lack of regional services and distance to treatment, poor care coordination, lack of effective screening methods, and health professional behaviours. Fractured and locally isolated approaches routinely confound responses to the social, cultural and health system complexities that surround a diagnosis of lung cancer and subsequent treatment. Improving outcomes for this disadvantaged patient group will require government, health agencies, and the community to take an aggressive, integrated approach balancing health policy, treatment priorities, and societal values.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 115 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 14%
Student > Bachelor 16 14%
Researcher 11 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 17 15%
Unknown 39 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 22%
Psychology 15 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 9%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 16 14%
Unknown 41 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 07 February 2020.
All research outputs
#4,765,516
of 23,597,497 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#1,140
of 4,732 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,946
of 321,824 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#28
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,597,497 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,732 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 321,824 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 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 63% of its contemporaries.