↓ Skip to main content

Awareness and Uptake of Family Screening in Patients Diagnosed with Colorectal Cancer at a Young Age

Overview of attention for article published in Gastroenterology Research & Practice, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Awareness and Uptake of Family Screening in Patients Diagnosed with Colorectal Cancer at a Young Age
Published in
Gastroenterology Research & Practice, January 2015
DOI 10.1155/2015/194931
Pubmed ID
Authors

Niamh M. Hogan, Marion Hanley, Aisling M. Hogan, Margaret Sheehan, Oliver J. McAnena, Mark P. Regan, Michael J. Kerin, Myles R. Joyce

Abstract

Background. One-fifth of people who develop colorectal cancer (CRC) have a first-degree relative (FDR) also affected. There is a large disparity in guidelines for screening of relatives of patients with CRC. Herein we address awareness and uptake of family screening amongst patients diagnosed with CRC under age 60 and compare guidelines for screening. Study Design. Patients under age 60 who received surgical management for CRC between June 2009 and May 2012 were identified using pathology records and theatre logbooks. A telephone questionnaire was carried out to investigate family history and screening uptake among FDRs. Results. Of 317 patients surgically managed for CRC over the study period, 65 were under age 60 at diagnosis (8 deceased). The mean age was 51 (30-59). 66% had node positive disease. 25% had a family history of colorectal cancer in a FDR. While American and Canadian guidelines identified 100% of these patients as requiring screening, British guidelines advocated screening for only 40%. Of 324 FDRs, only 40.9% had been screened as a result of patient's diagnosis. Conclusions. Uptake of screening in FDRs of young patients with CRC is low. Increased education and uniformity of guidelines may improve screening uptake in this high-risk population.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 29%
Librarian 2 14%
Student > Master 2 14%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 7%
Social Sciences 1 7%
Psychology 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 29%
Attention Score in Context

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 20 February 2015.
All research outputs
#20,657,128
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Gastroenterology Research & Practice
#454
of 703 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#267,675
of 359,658 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Gastroenterology Research & Practice
#17
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 703 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 359,658 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.