| Title |
Frustrated and Confused: The American Public Rates its Cancer-Related Information-Seeking Experiences
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, October 2007
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11606-007-0406-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Neeraj K. Arora, Bradford W. Hesse, Barbara K. Rimer, K. Viswanath, Marla L. Clayman, Robert T. Croyle |
| Abstract |
Ensuring access to high-quality cancer-related information is important for the success of cancer prevention and control efforts. We conducted a population-based assessment of the barriers faced by people searching for cancer information. Cross-sectional data from the National Cancer Institute's 2003 Health Information National Trends Survey. A nationally representative sample of individuals in the USA (n = 6,369). We assessed whether respondents had ever sought cancer-related information and examined ratings of their information-seeking experiences and beliefs regarding causes of cancer and its prevention. Linear and logistic regression models were estimated to determine predictors of negative experiences and associations between experiences and cancer beliefs. Nearly one half (44.9%) of Americans had searched for cancer information. Many reported negative experiences, including the search process requiring a lot of effort (47.7%), expressing frustration (41.3%), and concerns about the quality of the information found (57.7%). Respondents lacking health insurance or a high school education experienced the greatest difficulty. Compared to those reporting the most positive experiences, information seekers reporting more negative experiences were more likely to report that almost everything caused cancer [odds ratio (OR) 2.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.5-2.6], that not much can be done to prevent cancer (OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.9-3.8), and that it is hard to know which cancer prevention recommendations to follow (OR 3.2, 95% CI 2.3-4.5). While a significant proportion of the American public searches for cancer information, suboptimal experiences are common. Facilitation of information seeking will be critical for promoting informed decision making in cancer prevention and control. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| Canada | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 101 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 17 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 9% |
| Other | 22 | 21% |
| Unknown | 24 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 21% |
| Social Sciences | 21 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 6% |
| Psychology | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 11 | 10% |
| Unknown | 29 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 01 December 2016.
All research outputs
#2,733,000
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#2,026
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,844
of 73,649 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#15
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 73,649 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 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 72% of its contemporaries.