↓ Skip to main content

Advanced cancer patients’ attitudes towards, and experiences with, screening for somatic mutations in tumours: a qualitative study

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 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
Advanced cancer patients’ attitudes towards, and experiences with, screening for somatic mutations in tumours: a qualitative study
Published in
European Journal of Cancer Care, October 2016
DOI 10.1111/ecc.12600
Pubmed ID
Authors

R. Liang, B. Meiser, S. Smith, N.A. Kasparian, C.R. Lewis, M. Chin, G.V. Long, R. Ward, A.M. Menzies, J.N. Harris‐Wai, R. Kaur

Abstract

Somatic mutations in key oncogenes in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and melanoma are important determinants of tumour sensitivity to targeted therapies. Molecular screening for these predictive biomarkers is routinely used to inform treatment decisions; however, little is known about how best to communicate testing and results to patients. This qualitative study aimed to explore advanced cancer patients' attitudes and experiences regarding somatic tumour screening to identify their information and support needs. Sixteen NSCLC and eight melanoma patients who had undergone screening participated in a semi-structured face-to-face or telephone interview exploring their understanding, views, preferences and needs regarding screening. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed and analysed for thematic patterns. Participants expressed positive views and unequivocal acceptance of screening, and understood its role in guiding treatment selection. They preferred to receive information verbally through simple, non-technical language from their oncologist with additional take-home materials. Patients were interested in learning about their test results, but wanted discussion to be focused on practical matters relevant to treatment. While receiving their screening results was not considered burdensome, information overload and cancer-related distress were identified as barriers to test comprehension. Patients may benefit from information and decision-related tools to better understand genomic information and adequately support psychosocial outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 65 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Master 7 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 26 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 9 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 27 42%
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 06 December 2016.
All research outputs
#17,285,668
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Cancer Care
#862
of 1,314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#211,956
of 326,612 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Cancer Care
#15
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,314 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 326,612 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.