↓ Skip to main content

The impact of doctor–patient communication on patients’ perceptions of their risk of breast cancer recurrence

Overview of attention for article published in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, December 2016
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 (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
Title
The impact of doctor–patient communication on patients’ perceptions of their risk of breast cancer recurrence
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, December 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10549-016-4076-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nancy K. Janz, Yun Li, Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, Reshma Jagsi, Allison W. Kurian, Lawrence C. An, M. Chandler McLeod, Kamaria L. Lee, Steven J. Katz, Sarah T. Hawley

Abstract

Doctor-patient communication is the primary way for women diagnosed with breast cancer to learn about their risk of distant recurrence. Yet little is known about how doctors approach these discussions. A weighted random sample of newly diagnosed early-stage breast cancer patients identified through SEER registries of Los Angeles and Georgia (2013-2015) was sent surveys about ~2 months after surgery (Phase 2, N = 3930, RR 68%). We assessed patient perceptions of doctor communication of risk of recurrence (i.e., amount, approach, inquiry about worry). Clinically determined 10-year risk of distant recurrence was established for low and intermediate invasive cancer patients. Women's perceived risk of distant recurrence (0-100%) was categorized into subgroups: overestimation, reasonably accurate, and zero risk. Understanding of risk and patient factors (e.g. health literacy, numeracy, and anxiety/worry) on physician communication outcomes was evaluated in multivariable regression models (analytic sample for substudy = 1295). About 33% of women reported that doctors discussed risk of recurrence as "quite a bit" or "a lot," while 14% said "not at all." Over half of women reported that doctors used words and numbers to describe risk, while 24% used only words. Overestimators (OR .50, CI 0.31-0.81) or those who perceived zero risk (OR .46, CI 0.29-0.72) more often said that their doctor did not discuss risk. Patients with low numeracy reported less discussion. Over 60% reported that their doctor almost never inquired about worry. Effective doctor-patient communication is critical to patient understanding of risk of recurrence. Efforts to enhance physicians' ability to engage in individualized communication around risk are needed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 92 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 12%
Researcher 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 16 17%
Unknown 27 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 10%
Psychology 8 9%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 34 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 February 2017.
All research outputs
#3,118,273
of 23,308,124 outputs
Outputs from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#463
of 4,707 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,404
of 421,750 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#11
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,308,124 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,707 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 421,750 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.