| Title |
Using Information Technology in the Assessment and Monitoring of Geriatric Oncology Patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Oncology Reports, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11912-018-0672-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kah Poh Loh, Colin McHugh, Supriya G. Mohile, Karen Mustian, Marie Flannery, Heidi Klepin, Rebecca Schnall, Eva Culakova, Erika Ramsdale |
| Abstract |
Older adults with cancer have complex medical needs and often experience higher rates of treatment-related toxicities compared to their younger counterparts. The advent of health information technologies can address multiple gaps in the care of this population. We review the role of existing and emerging technologies in facilitating the use of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in routine clinics, promoting symptom reporting, and monitoring medication adherence. Increasingly, studies demonstrate the feasibility of implementing electronic CGA in routine oncology practices. Evidence also suggests that electronic symptom reporting can improve outcomes in patients with cancer. In addition, technology devices can be used to promote adherence to cancer therapy. There are many opportunities for information technology to be integrated into the management and treatment of older adults with cancer. However, further evaluation of these technologies is needed to ensure that they meet the needs of the targeted end users. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 | 5 | 42% |
| Spain | 1 | 8% |
| Mexico | 1 | 8% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 8% |
| Australia | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 3 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 58% |
| Scientists | 3 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 79 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 11% |
| Other | 8 | 10% |
| Researcher | 7 | 9% |
| Other | 16 | 20% |
| Unknown | 19 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 8% |
| Psychology | 4 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 11% |
| Unknown | 28 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 15 December 2018.
All research outputs
#4,238,038
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Current Oncology Reports
#148
of 924 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,493
of 333,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Oncology Reports
#4
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 924 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 333,076 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.