↓ Skip to main content

The patients’ experience of a bladder cancer diagnosis: a systematic review of the qualitative evidence

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cancer Survivorship, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 Mendeley
Title
The patients’ experience of a bladder cancer diagnosis: a systematic review of the qualitative evidence
Published in
Journal of Cancer Survivorship, February 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11764-017-0603-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amanda J. Edmondson, Jacqueline C. Birtwistle, James W.F. Catto, Maureen Twiddy

Abstract

Bladder cancer (BC) is a common disease with disparate treatment options and variable outcomes. Despite the disease's high prevalence, little is known of the lived experience of affected patients. National patient experience surveys suggest that those with BC have poorer experiences than those with other common cancers. The aim of this review is to identify first-hand accounts of the lived experiences of diagnosis through to survivorship. This is a systematic review of the qualitative evidence reporting first-hand accounts of the experiences of being diagnosed with, treated for and surviving bladder cancer. A thematic analysis and 'best-fit' framework synthesis was undertaken to classify these experiences. The inconsistent nature of symptoms contributes to delays in diagnosis. Post-diagnosis, many patients are not actively engaged in the treatment decision-making process and rely on their doctor's expertise. This can result in patients not adequately exploring the consequences of these decisions. Learning how to cope with a 'post-surgery body', changing sexuality and incontinence are distressing. Much less is known about the quality of life of patients receiving conservative treatments such as Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG). The review contributes to a greater understanding of the lived experience of bladder cancer. Findings reflect a paucity of relevant literature and a need to develop more sensitive patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and incorporate patient-reported outcomes in BC care pathways. Collective knowledge of the patients' self-reported experience of the cancer care pathway will facilitate understanding of the outcomes following treatment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 97 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 14%
Student > Master 11 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Other 8 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Other 18 19%
Unknown 30 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 11%
Psychology 8 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 18 19%
Unknown 31 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 23 March 2017.
All research outputs
#15,160,034
of 23,316,003 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cancer Survivorship
#766
of 1,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,758
of 310,159 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cancer Survivorship
#19
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,316,003 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,003 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 310,159 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.