| Title |
Follow-up care after treatment for prostate cancer: protocol for an evaluation of a nurse-led supported self-management and remote surveillance programme
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Cancer, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12885-017-3643-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jane Frankland, Hazel Brodie, Deborah Cooke, Claire Foster, Rebecca Foster, Heather Gage, Jake Jordan, Ines Mesa-Eguiagaray, Ruth Pickering, Alison Richardson |
| Abstract |
As more men survive a diagnosis of prostate cancer, alternative models of follow-up care that address men's enduring unmet needs and are economical to deliver are needed. This paper describes the protocol for an ongoing evaluation of a nurse-led supported self-management and remote surveillance programme implemented within the secondary care setting. The evaluation is taking place within a real clinical setting, comparing the outcomes of men enrolled in the Programme with the outcomes of a pre-service change cohort of men, using a repeated measures design. Men are followed up at four and 8 months post recruitment on a number of outcomes, including quality of life, unmet need, psychological wellbeing and activation for self-management. An embedded health economic analysis and qualitative evaluation of implementation processes are being undertaken. The evaluation will provide important information regarding the effectiveness, cost effectiveness and implementation of an integrated supported self-management follow-up care pathway within secondary care. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 65 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 12% |
| Researcher | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Unknown | 23 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 20% |
| Psychology | 8 | 12% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Unknown | 28 | 43% |
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 24 October 2017.
All research outputs
#17,158,136
of 25,205,864 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#4,521
of 8,899 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,968
of 324,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#62
of 111 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,205,864 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,899 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 324,044 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 111 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.