| Title |
Primary Care Providers’ Intended Use of Decision Aids for Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing for Prostate Cancer Screening
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Cancer Education, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13187-018-1353-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sun Hee Rim, Ingrid J. Hall, Greta M. Massetti, Cheryll C. Thomas, Jun Li, Lisa C. Richardson |
| Abstract |
Decision aids are tools intended to help people weigh the benefits and harms of a health decision. We examined primary care providers' perspective on use of decision aids and explored whether providers' beliefs and interest in use of a decision aid was associated with offering the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test for early detection of prostate cancer. Data were obtained from 2016 DocStyles, an annual, web-based survey of U.S. healthcare professionals including primary care physicians (n = 1003) and nurse practitioners (n = 253). We found that the majority of primary care providers reported not using (patient) decision aids for prostate cancer screening, but were interested in learning about and incorporating these tools in their practice. Given the potential of decision aids to guide in informed decision-making, there is an opportunity for evaluating existing decision aids for prostate cancer screening for clinical use. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 | 3 | 50% |
| Japan | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 83% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 21 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 14% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 19% |
| Unknown | 7 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 14% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 5% |
| Psychology | 1 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 19% |
| Unknown | 9 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 05 April 2018.
All research outputs
#7,491,883
of 23,031,582 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cancer Education
#301
of 1,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,945
of 330,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cancer Education
#12
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,031,582 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,151 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 330,380 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 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 61% of its contemporaries.