| Title |
Exploring the rationale, experience and impact of using Cancer Information and Support (CIS) services: an international qualitative study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Supportive Care in Cancer, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00520-016-3513-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anna Boltong, Martin Ledwick, Kevin Babb, Clare Sutton, Anna Ugalde |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to develop an in-depth understanding of the rationale, experiences, evaluation and outcomes of using Cancer Information and Support (CIS) services in Australia, the UK and USA. Semi-structured interviews were used to gather data between November 2015 and January 2016. Telephone interviews were recorded, de-identified, transcribed and thematically analysed. Ten users from each of three international CIS services (n = 30 in total) were recruited. Participants were eligible for inclusion if they had utilised the CIS in 2015 via telephone contact with a cancer nurse and identified as a patient or cancer survivor, or friend or family member of such a person. Four major themes were derived and included a total of 25 sub-themes. Key themes included (i) drivers for access, (ii) experience of the service, (iii) impact and (iv) an adjunct to cancer treatment services. Cancer Information and Support nurses internationally act as expert navigators, educators and compassionate communicators who 'listen between the lines' to enable callers to better understand and contextualise their situation and discuss it with their healthcare team and family and friends. Use of the service can result in reduced worry, extend support repertoires and enable use of new knowledge and language as a tool to getting the most from the healthcare team. The positioning of CIS alongside cancer treatment services aids fuller integration of supportive care, benefiting both patients and clinicians. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Greece | 1 | 14% |
| Canada | 1 | 14% |
| Australia | 1 | 14% |
| Sweden | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 57% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 29% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 49 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 10% |
| Lecturer | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 16% |
| Unknown | 20 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 16% |
| Psychology | 5 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 25 | 51% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 16 April 2017.
All research outputs
#2,320,667
of 23,302,246 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#414
of 4,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,067
of 418,905 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#10
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,302,246 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,687 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 418,905 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.