| Title |
Differences Among College Women for Breast Cancer Prevention Acquired Information-Seeking, Desired Apps and Texts, and Daughter-Initiated Information to Mothers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Community Health, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10900-013-9759-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cynthia Kratzke, Anup Amatya, Hugo Vilchis |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this study was to examine among college women acquired breast cancer prevention information-seeking, desired apps and texts, and information given to mothers. Using a cross-sectional study, a survey was administered to college women at a southwestern university. College women (n = 546) used the Internet (44 %) for active breast cancer prevention information-seeking and used the Internet (74 %), magazines (69 %), and television (59 %) for passive information receipt. Over half of the participants desired breast cancer prevention apps (54 %) and texts (51 %). Logistic regression analyses revealed predictors for interest to receive apps were ethnicity (Hispanic), lower self-efficacy, actively seeking online information, and older age and predictors for interest to receive texts were lower self-efficacy and higher university level. Eighteen percent of college women (n = 99) reported giving information to mothers and reported in an open-ended item the types of information given to mothers. Predictors for giving information to mothers were actively and passively seeking online information, breast self-exam practice, and higher university level. Screenings were the most frequent types of information given to mothers. Breast cancer prevention information using apps, texts, or Internet and daughter-initiated information for mothers should be considered in health promotion targeting college students or young women in communities. Future research is needed to examine the quality of apps, texts, and online information and cultural differences for breast cancer prevention sources. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 141 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Argentina | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 137 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 20 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 7% |
| Researcher | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 27 | 19% |
| Unknown | 33 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 22 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 19 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 14 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 22 | 16% |
| Unknown | 37 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 28 August 2013.
All research outputs
#18,345,822
of 22,719,618 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Community Health
#993
of 1,212 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,548
of 200,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Community Health
#22
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,719,618 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,212 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.9. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 200,133 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.