| Title |
Racial and Ethnic Differences in Prostate Cancer Survivors’ Perceived Engagement in Treatment Decision-Making
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40615-018-0475-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nynikka R. Palmer, Steven E. Gregorich, Jennifer Livaudais-Toman, Jane Jih, Celia P. Kaplan |
| Abstract |
We examined prostate cancer patients' perceived engagement in treatment decision-making and associated factors by race/ethnicity in a multiethnic sample. We identified patients through the California Cancer Registry. Patients completed a cross-sectional telephone interview in English, Spanish, Cantonese, or Mandarin. Multivariable logistic regression models, stratified by race/ethnicity, estimated the associations of patient demographic and health status characteristics on (1) doctor asked patient to help decide treatment plan and (2) patient and doctor worked out a treatment plan together. We included 855 prostate cancer patients: African American (19%), Asian American (15%), Latino (24%), and White (42%). Asian American patients were less likely than White patients to report that their doctors asked them to help decide a treatment plan (OR = 0.31; 95% CI = 0.18-0.53) and that they worked out a treatment plan with their doctors (OR = 0.54; 95% CI = 0.33-0.90). Language of interview was a significant contributing factor in stratified analysis for both outcomes. Asian American prostate cancer patients reported less engagement in treatment decision-making, with Chinese language being a significant contributing factor. Future research should identify patient-centered strategies that effectively engage underserved patients and support healthcare providers in shared decision-making with multiethnic and multilingual patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 54 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 12 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 11% |
| Psychology | 5 | 9% |
| Engineering | 4 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Unknown | 18 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 07 December 2019.
All research outputs
#15,503,317
of 23,039,416 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities
#802
of 1,024 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#212,526
of 332,625 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities
#21
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,039,416 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,024 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.3. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 332,625 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.