| Title |
Evaluation of question-listing at the Cancer Support Community
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Translational Behavioral Medicine, February 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13142-012-0186-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jeff Belkora, Melissa Miller, Bonnie Crawford, Kathleen Coyne, Margaret Stauffer, Joanne Buzaglo, Natasha Blakeney, Margo Michaels, Mitch Golant |
| Abstract |
The Cancer Support Community (CSC) provides psychosocial support to people facing cancer in community settings. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the compatibility, effectiveness, and fidelity of the Situation-Choices-Objectives-People-Evaluation-Decisions (SCOPED) question-listing intervention at three CSC sites. Between August 2008 and August 2011, the Program Director at each CSC site implemented question-listing, while measuring patient distress, anxiety, and self-efficacy before and after each intervention. We analyzed the quantitative results using unadjusted statistical tests and reviewed qualitative comments by patients and the case notes of Program Directors to assess compatibility and fidelity. Program Directors implemented question-listing with 77 blood cancer patients. Patients reported decreased distress (p = 0.009) and anxiety (p = 0.005) and increased self-efficacy (p < 0.001). Patients and Program Directors endorsed the intervention as compatible with CSC's mission and approach and feasible to implement with high fidelity. CSC effectively translated SCOPED question-listing into practice in the context of its community-based psychosocial support services at three sites. |
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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 28 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 25% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 14% |
| Researcher | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 6 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 6 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 11% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 8 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 26 August 2016.
All research outputs
#13,382,001
of 22,705,019 outputs
Outputs from Translational Behavioral Medicine
#610
of 988 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,032
of 287,608 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Translational Behavioral Medicine
#9
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,705,019 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 988 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 287,608 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.