| Title |
What circumstances lead to non-disclosure of cancer-related information in China? A qualitative study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Supportive Care in Cancer, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00520-016-3464-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yi Hu Ni, Terje Alræk |
| Abstract |
Withholding information from cancer patients is a common practice in many Asian countries, including China, Japan, and Singapore, as well as in some Western countries, such as Spain, Greece, and Italy. Much research has investigated why doctors withhold information from cancer patients generally, both in the West and the East, but little research has been done on specifically why Chinese doctors withhold such information. Three focus group interviews were conducted with a total of 16 oncologists in China. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and translated. Qualitative data were analyzed using systematic text condensation. The result of this study revealed numerous circumstances that can lead to non-disclosure of cancer-related information. Many of these circumstances have been described in previous studies about non-disclosure in other countries. We found two additional circumstances that have not been described in previous literature and might therefore expand our current knowledge about this phenomenon; they are contradiction between laws and fear for personal safety. Numerous circumstances can lead to non-disclosure of cancer-related information. This study found two additional circumstances that might lead to non-disclosure. The findings of this study suggest further assessment and clarification about the laws that govern doctor-patient communication and that action should be taken to ensure safe working environments for Chinese oncologists. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 35 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
| Researcher | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 15 | 43% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 23% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 11% |
| Psychology | 3 | 9% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 15 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 46. 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 18 December 2023.
All research outputs
#903,771
of 25,507,011 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#70
of 5,085 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,889
of 319,179 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#2
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,507,011 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,085 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 319,179 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 87 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 98% of its contemporaries.