↓ Skip to main content

Decision making and referral from primary care for possible lung and colorectal cancer: a qualitative study of patients’ experiences

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
8 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Decision making and referral from primary care for possible lung and colorectal cancer: a qualitative study of patients’ experiences
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, December 2014
DOI 10.3399/bjgp14x682849
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jon Banks, Fiona M Walter, Nicola Hall, Katie Mills, William Hamilton, Katrina M Turner

Abstract

The challenge for GPs when assessing whether to refer a patient for cancer investigation is that many cancer symptoms are also caused by benign self-limiting illness. UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) referral guidelines emphasise that the patient should be involved in the decision-making process and be informed of the reasons for referral. Research to date, however, has not examined the extent to which these guidelines are borne out in practice.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 71 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 15%
Student > Master 10 14%
Other 4 6%
Lecturer 3 4%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 18 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 6%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 23 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 67. 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 03 March 2020.
All research outputs
#539,593
of 22,774,233 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#225
of 4,275 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,287
of 361,424 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#2
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,774,233 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,275 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 361,424 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.