| Title |
Improving structural development in oncology: transformation of theoretical health care standards and knowledge into a practical approach—2nd European Roundtable Meeting (ERTM), May 8, 2015, Berlin, Germany
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00432-015-2052-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
O. Ortmann, J. Torode, U. Helbig |
| Abstract |
It is widely accepted that National Cancer Control Plans (NCCPs) are essential to improve cancer care. They often describe the structural requirements such as cancer centers, clinical cancer registries and quality control. During the 2nd European roundtable meeting, the implementation processes were analyzed and discussed. Communication strategies between cancer registries and cancer centers need to be developed. Analyses and discussion of collected data have to be performed by multidisciplinary teams. This has to be followed by appropriate actions to improve quality of care. It is essential to describe the clinical procedures, organizational processes and communication between individuals and professional teams. The patients' perspectives have to be included in the development of cancer care networks. The patients' feedback on cancer care is a routine quality indicator. NCCPs that include the description of structural requirements are important. In addition, it is essential to develop cancer care networks including multidisciplinary organizational processes to guarantee high quality. These have to consider patients preferences. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 21 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 10% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 19% |
| Unknown | 6 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 19% |
| Psychology | 3 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 8 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 08 July 2016.
All research outputs
#7,855,444
of 23,815,455 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology
#601
of 2,632 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,479
of 285,455 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology
#5
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,815,455 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,632 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 285,455 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.