| Title |
Survivorship care plans: are randomized controlled trials assessing outcomes that are relevant to stakeholders?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Cancer Survivorship, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11764-018-0688-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sarah A. Birken, Robin Urquhart, Corrine Munoz-Plaza, Alexandra R. Zizzi, Emily Haines, Angela Stover, Deborah K. Mayer, Erin E. Hahn |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes assessed in extant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to outcomes that stakeholders expect from survivorship care plans (SCPs). To facilitate the transition from active treatment to follow-up care for the 15.5 million US cancer survivors, many organizations require SCP use. However, results of several RCTs of SCPs' effectiveness have been null, possibly because they have evaluated outcomes on which SCPs should be expected to have limited influence. Stakeholders (e.g., survivors, oncologists) may expect outcomes that differ from RCTs' outcomes. We identified RCTs' outcomes using a PubMed literature review. We identified outcomes that stakeholders expect from SCPs using semistructured interviews with stakeholders in three healthcare systems in the USA and Canada. Finally, we mapped RCTs' outcomes onto stakeholder-identified outcomes. RCT outcomes did not fully address outcomes that stakeholders expected from SCPs, and RCTs assessed outcomes that stakeholders did not expect from SCPs. RCTs often assessed outcomes only from survivors' perspectives. RCTs of SCPs' effectiveness have not assessed outcomes that stakeholders expect. To better understand SCPs' effectiveness, future RCTs should assess outcomes of SCP use that are relevant from the perspective of multiple stakeholders. SCPs' effectiveness may be optimized when used with an eye toward outcomes that stakeholders expect from SCPs. For survivors, this means using SCPs as a map to guide them with respect to what kind of follow-up care they should seek, when they should seek it, and from whom they should seek it. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 | 6 | 43% |
| Australia | 1 | 7% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 7% |
| Canada | 1 | 7% |
| Germany | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 4 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 5 | 36% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 29% |
| Members of the public | 4 | 29% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 47 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 17% |
| Researcher | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 4% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 19% |
| Unknown | 14 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 30% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 17% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 9% |
| Psychology | 4 | 9% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 14 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 24 July 2018.
All research outputs
#3,662,302
of 23,028,364 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cancer Survivorship
#271
of 986 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,584
of 331,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cancer Survivorship
#3
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,028,364 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 986 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 331,443 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 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.