| Title |
The Role of Physician Recommendation in Colorectal Cancer Screening Receipt Among Immigrant Chinese Americans
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10903-017-0679-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jane Jih, Minh P. Nguyen, Irene Ly, Janice Y. Tsoh, Gem M. Le, Kent Woo, Elaine Chan, Ginny Gildengorin, Susan L. Stewart, Adam Burke, Rena Pasick, Stephen J. McPhee, Tung T. Nguyen |
| Abstract |
Chinese Americans have low colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates. It is unclear whether physicians should offer all CRC screening modalities (fecal occult blood test [FOBT], sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy) to Chinese Americans to increase screening. Seven hundred and twenty-five Chinese Americans were asked in a survey if their physician had ever recommended CRC screening and to self-report receipt and type of CRC screening. Participants whose physician had recommended all CRC screening modalities were significantly more likely to report ever having screening (adjusted odds ratio 4.29, 95% CI 1.26-14.68) and being up-to-date (4.06, 95% CI 2.13-7.74) than those who reported that their physician only recommended FOBT. Participants who received a recommendation of only one type of screening did not report a significant difference in ever having or being up-to-date for screening. A potential strategy to increase CRC screening among Chinese Americans is for clinicians to recommend all available CRC screening modalities to each patient. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 States | 8 | 73% |
| Unknown | 3 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 82% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 9% |
| Scientists | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 43 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 16% |
| Unknown | 14 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 9% |
| Psychology | 4 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 19 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 06 February 2018.
All research outputs
#3,965,491
of 23,867,274 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health
#222
of 1,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,773
of 444,070 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health
#3
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,867,274 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,261 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 444,070 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.