| Title |
Individual- and provider-level factors associated with colorectal cancer screening in accordance with guideline recommendation: a community-level perspective across varying levels of risk
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, March 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2458-13-248 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ryan J Courtney, Christine L Paul, Robert W Sanson-Fisher, Finlay A Macrae, Mariko L Carey, John Attia, Mark McEvoy |
| Abstract |
Participation rates in colorectal cancer screening (CRC) are low. Relatively little is known about screening uptake across varying levels of risk and across population groups. The purpose of the current study was to identify factors associated with (i) ever receiving colorectal cancer (CRC) testing; (ii) risk-appropriate CRC screening in accordance with guidelines; and (iii) recent colonoscopy screening. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 55 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 16% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 18% |
| Unknown | 14 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 40% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 12% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 15 | 26% |
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 22 March 2013.
All research outputs
#18,333,600
of 22,703,044 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#12,782
of 14,778 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,890
of 197,463 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#273
of 309 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,703,044 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 14,778 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 197,463 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 309 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.