| Title |
First Descents, an adventure program for young adults with cancer: who benefits?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Supportive Care in Cancer, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00520-017-3792-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Brad Zebrack, Minyoung Kwak, Laura Sundstrom |
| Abstract |
Participation in camps, adventure programs, retreats, and other social events offers experiences that can promote self-efficacy and quality of life. The purpose of the study was to examine whether participation in a 1-week outdoor adventure program resulted in improvements in psychological distress, self-efficacy, and/or social support for young adult cancer patients (AYAs) aged 18-40 years. The study examined the differential effect of participation for AYAs who indicated moderate to severe symptoms of psychological distress prior to their trip. Standardized measures of distress, self-efficacy, and social support were administered pre-trip, post-trip, and 1 month after program completion (follow-up). Univariate and multivariate models examined baseline scores for non-distressed participants compared to distressed participants, changes in outcomes from pre-trip to post-trip and follow-up for the entire sample, and the extent to which change rates for each outcome differed for distressed versus non-distressed participants. All participants demonstrated significant improvement in self-efficacy over time. Distressed participants reported a significantly greater decrease in distress symptoms and greater increase in self-efficacy and social support at post-trip and 1 month later when compared to non-distressed participants. Findings suggest that participation in an outdoor recreational activity designed specifically for AYAs with cancer contributes to significant reductions in distress and improvements in self-efficacy and social support, and particularly for AYAs reporting clinically significant distress symptoms prior to the initiation of their activity. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 55 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 15% |
| Researcher | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Unknown | 18 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 12 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Sports and Recreations | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 16% |
| Unknown | 21 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 30 April 2020.
All research outputs
#2,477,571
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#458
of 4,643 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,171
of 315,738 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#14
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,643 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 315,738 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.