| Title |
Predictors of Nonadherence to Screening Colonoscopy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, November 2005
|
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.00164.x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thomas D. Denberg, Trisha V. Melhado, John M. Coombes, Brenda L. Beaty, Kenneth Berman, Tim E. Byers, Alfred C. Marcus, John F. Steiner, Dennis J. Ahnen |
| Abstract |
Colonoscopy has become a preferred colorectal cancer (CRC) screening modality. Little is known about why patients who are referred for colonoscopy do not complete the recommended procedures. Prior adherence studies have evaluated colonoscopy only in combination with flexible sigmoidoscopy, failed to differentiate between screening and diagnostic procedures, and have examined cancellations/no-shows, but not nonscheduling, as mechanisms of nonadherence. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 148 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 1% |
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 142 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 24 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 17 | 11% |
| Other | 12 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 7% |
| Other | 35 | 24% |
| Unknown | 31 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 53 | 36% |
| Psychology | 20 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 18 | 12% |
| Unknown | 34 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 15 November 2014.
All research outputs
#7,356,550
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#3,946
of 8,175 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,163
of 76,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#13
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,175 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 76,601 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.