↓ Skip to main content

The effect of routine training on the self-efficacy of informal caregivers of colorectal cancer patients

Overview of attention for article published in Supportive Care in Cancer, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
Title
The effect of routine training on the self-efficacy of informal caregivers of colorectal cancer patients
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer, November 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00520-016-3494-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachel D. Havyer, Michelle van Ryn, Patrick M. Wilson, Joan M. Griffin

Abstract

Little is known about the degree to which caregiver training as part of routine clinical care influences caregiver self-efficacy. The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between training during routine clinical cancer care and self-efficacy among caregivers of colorectal cancer patients. Caregivers completed a self-administered questionnaire about their experiences with training for specific patient problems and about their task-specific and general caregiving self-efficacy. Associations between training and self-efficacy were examined for each problem using multivariate logistic regression adjusted for caregiver age, race, care burden, education, perception of patient's health, and patient stage of disease. Four hundred seventeen caregivers completed the survey (70% response rate), of whom 374 (90%) were female and 284 (68%) were the patient's spouse/partner. Overall, 77 (38%) reported inadequate training for pain, 80 (38%) for bowel, 121 (48%) for fatigue, 65 (26%) for medication administration, and 101 (40%) for other symptoms. The odds of having low self-efficacy were significantly higher among those with perceptions of inadequate training across the following cancer-related problems: pain 10.10 (3.36, 30.39), bowel 5.04 (1.98, 12.82), fatigue 8.45 (3.22, 22.15), managing medications 9.00 (3.30, 24.51), and other 3.87 (1.68, 8.93). Caregivers commonly report inadequate training in routine colorectal cancer care. Significant and consistent associations between training adequacy and self-efficacy were found. This study supports the value of training caregivers in common cancer symptoms. Further work on how and when to provide caregiver training to best impact self-efficacy is needed.

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 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 60 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 15%
Researcher 7 12%
Student > Master 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Lecturer 3 5%
Other 11 18%
Unknown 20 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 11 18%
Psychology 8 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 12%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 22 37%
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 24 April 2017.
All research outputs
#13,547,128
of 22,963,381 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#2,605
of 4,634 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,873
of 416,956 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#56
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,963,381 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,634 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 416,956 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.