↓ Skip to main content

Patient involvement in diagnosing cancer in primary care: a systematic review of current interventions

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
27 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
Title
Patient involvement in diagnosing cancer in primary care: a systematic review of current interventions
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, February 2018
DOI 10.3399/bjgp18x695045
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jane Heyhoe, Caroline Reynolds, Alice Dunning, Olivia Johnson, Alex Howat, Rebecca Lawton

Abstract

Patients can play a role in achieving an earlier diagnosis of cancer by monitoring and re-appraising symptoms after initially presenting to primary care. It is not clear what interventions exist, or what the components of an intervention to engage patients at this diagnostic stage are. The review had two aims: 1) to identify interventions that involve patients, and 2) to establish key components for engaging patients in the diagnosis of cancer in primary care at the post-presentation stage. Empirical studies and non-empirical articles were identified searching Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Embase databases, relevant journals, and available key author publication lists. Abstracts and titles were screened against inclusion and exclusion criteria. Qualitative synthesis of empirical research and current opinion from across all articles was used to select, organise, and interpret findings. No interventions were found. Sixteen articles provided suggestions for potential interventions and components important at the post-presentation stage. Factors contributing to patients not always being engaged in assisting with diagnosis, strategies to foster patient involvement, and moderators and benefits to patients and health services (proximal and distal outcomes) were captured in a logic model. There is an absence of interventions involving patients during the post-presentation stage of the diagnostic process. Limited literature was drawn upon to identify potential barriers and facilitators for engaging patients at this diagnostic stage, and to establish possible mechanisms of change and measurable outcomes. Findings can direct future research and the development of interventions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

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 8 19%
Other 5 12%
Student > Master 5 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 12%
Lecturer 2 5%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 13 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 33%
Psychology 5 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Computer Science 2 5%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 15 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 12 April 2023.
All research outputs
#2,456,943
of 25,698,912 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#1,165
of 4,927 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,343
of 456,550 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#29
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,698,912 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,927 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 456,550 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 101 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.