↓ Skip to main content

The GRAIDS Trial: a cluster randomised controlled trial of computer decision support for the management of familial cancer risk in primary care

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of Cancer, August 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
86 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
132 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
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.
Title
The GRAIDS Trial: a cluster randomised controlled trial of computer decision support for the management of familial cancer risk in primary care
Published in
British Journal of Cancer, August 2007
DOI 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603897
Pubmed ID
Authors

J Emery, H Morris, R Goodchild, T Fanshawe, A T Prevost, M Bobrow, A L Kinmonth

Abstract

The objective was to evaluate the effect of an assessment strategy using the computer decision support system (the GRAIDS software), on the management of familial cancer risk in British general practice in comparison with best current practice. The design included cluster randomised controlled trial, and involved forty-five general practice teams in East Anglia, UK. Randomised to GRAIDS (Genetic Risk Assessment on the Internet with Decision Support) support (intervention n=23) or comparison (n=22). Training in the new assessment strategy and access to the GRAIDS software (GRAIDS arm) was conducted, compared with an educational session and guidelines about managing familial breast and colorectal cancer risk (comparison) were mailed. Outcomes were measured at practice, practitioner and patient levels. The primary outcome measure, at practice level, was the proportion of referrals made to the Regional Genetics Clinic for familial breast or colorectal cancer that were consistent with referral guidelines. Other measures included practitioner confidence in managing familial cancer (GRAIDS arm only) and, in patients: cancer worry, risk perception and knowledge about familial cancer. There were more referrals to the Regional Genetics Clinic from GRAIDS than comparison practices (mean 6.2 and 3.2 referrals per 10 000 registered patients per year; mean difference 3.0 referrals; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-4.8; P=0.001); referrals from GRAIDS practices were more likely to be consistent with referral guidelines (odds ratio (OR)=5.2; 95% CI 1.7-15.8, P=0.006). Patients referred from GRAIDS practices had lower cancer worry scores at the point of referral (mean difference -1.44 95% CI -2.64 to -0.23, P=0.02). There were no differences in patient knowledge about familial cancer. The intervention increased GPs' confidence in managing familial cancer. Compared with education and mailed guidelines, assessment including computer decision support increased the number and quality of referrals to the Regional Genetics Clinic for familial cancer risk, improved practitioner confidence and had no adverse psychological effects in patients. Trials are registered under N0181144343 in the UK National Research Register.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Unknown 127 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 20%
Researcher 22 17%
Student > Master 19 14%
Other 9 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 6%
Other 26 20%
Unknown 21 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 9%
Psychology 10 8%
Social Sciences 8 6%
Computer Science 6 5%
Other 16 12%
Unknown 30 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 15 June 2021.
All research outputs
#4,495,953
of 22,711,645 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Cancer
#3,043
of 10,353 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,601
of 67,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Cancer
#12
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,711,645 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,353 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 67,256 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 81% 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 done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.