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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A Standard Set of Value-Based Patient-Centered Outcomes for Breast Cancer: The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) Initiative
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
JAMA Oncology, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.4851 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wee Loon Ong, Maartje G. Schouwenburg, Annelotte C.M. van Bommel, Caleb Stowell, Kim H. Allison, Karen E. Benn, John P. Browne, Rodney D. Cooter, Geoff P. Delaney, Francois P. Duhoux, Patricia A. Ganz, Patricia Hancock, Reshma Jagsi, Felicia M. Knaul, Anne M. Knip, Linetta B. Koppert, Henry M. Kuerer, Sarah McLaughin, Marc A. M. Mureau, Ann H. Partridge, Dereesa Purtell Reid, Lisa Sheeran, Thomas J. Smith, Mark J. Stoutjesdijk, Marie Jeanne T.F.D. Vrancken Peeters, Yvonne Wengström, Cheng-Har Yip, Christobel Saunders |
| Abstract |
A major challenge in value-based health care is the lack of standardized health outcomes measurements, hindering optimal monitoring and comparison of the quality of health care across different settings globally. The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) assembled a multidisciplinary international working group, comprised of 26 health care providers and patient advocates, to develop a standard set of value-based patient-centered outcomes for breast cancer (BC). The working group convened via 8 teleconferences and completed a follow-up survey after each meeting. A modified 2-round Delphi method was used to achieve consensus on the outcomes and case-mix variables to be included. Patient focus group meetings (8 early or metastatic BC patients) and online anonymized surveys of 1225 multinational BC patients and survivors were also conducted to obtain patients' input. The standard set encompasses survival and cancer control, and disutility of care (eg, acute treatment complications) outcomes, to be collected through administrative data and/or clinical records. A combination of multiple patient-reported outcomes measurement (PROM) tools is recommended to capture long-term degree of health outcomes. Selected case-mix factors were recommended to be collected at baseline. The ICHOM will endeavor to achieve wide buy-in of this set and facilitate its implementation in routine clinical practice in various settings and institutions worldwide. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 62 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 17 | 27% |
| United Kingdom | 6 | 10% |
| Mexico | 3 | 5% |
| Brazil | 3 | 5% |
| France | 2 | 3% |
| Australia | 2 | 3% |
| Italy | 2 | 3% |
| Ireland | 1 | 2% |
| Japan | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 22 | 35% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 30 | 48% |
| Scientists | 16 | 26% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 13 | 21% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 181 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 181 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 31 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 27 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 19 | 10% |
| Other | 16 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 6% |
| Other | 29 | 16% |
| Unknown | 49 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 61 | 34% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 8% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 7 | 4% |
| Psychology | 5 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 23 | 13% |
| Unknown | 65 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 63. 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 02 July 2021.
All research outputs
#691,866
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Oncology
#1,071
of 3,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,976
of 327,148 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Oncology
#26
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,345 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 84.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 327,148 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 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 67% of its contemporaries.