| Title |
Improving quality of life through the routine use of the patient concerns inventory for head and neck cancer patients: a cluster preference randomized controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Cancer, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12885-018-4355-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Simon N. Rogers, Derek Lowe, Cher Lowies, Seow Tien Yeo, Christine Allmark, Dominic Mcavery, Gerald M. Humphris, Robert Flavel, Cherith Semple, Steven J. Thomas, Anastasios Kanatas |
| Abstract |
The consequences of treatment for Head and Neck cancer (HNC) patients has profound detrimental impacts such as impaired QOL, emotional distress, delayed recovery and frequent use of healthcare. The aim of this trial is to determine if the routine use of the Patients Concerns Inventory (PCI) package in review clinics during the first year following treatment can improve overall quality of life, reduce the social-emotional impact of cancer and reduce levels of distress. Furthermore, we aim to describe the economic costs and benefits of using the PCI. This will be a cluster preference randomised control trial with consultants either 'using' or 'not using' the PCI package at clinic. It will involve two centres Leeds and Liverpool. 416 eligible patients from at least 10 consultant clusters are required to show a clinically meaningful difference in the primary outcome. The primary outcome is the percentage of participants with less than good overall quality of life at the final one-year clinic as measured by the University of Washington QOL questionnaire version 4 (UWQOLv4). Secondary outcomes at one-year are the mean social-emotional subscale (UWQOLv4) score, Distress Thermometer (DT) score ≥ 4, and key health economic measures (QALY-EQ-5D-5 L; CSRI). This trial will provide knowledge on the effectiveness of a consultation intervention package based around the PCI used at routine follow-up clinics following treatment of head and neck cancer with curative intent. If this intervention is (cost) effective for patients, the next step will be to promote wider use of this approach as standard care in clinical practice. 32,382. Clinical Trials Identifier, NCT03086629 . Version 3.0, 1st July 2017. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 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 Kingdom | 18 | 45% |
| Australia | 4 | 10% |
| New Zealand | 3 | 8% |
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Ireland | 1 | 3% |
| Hong Kong | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 12 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 18 | 45% |
| Scientists | 11 | 28% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 23% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 87 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 14% |
| Researcher | 10 | 11% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 14 | 16% |
| Unknown | 30 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 15% |
| Psychology | 7 | 8% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 2% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 8% |
| Unknown | 35 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 08 April 2019.
All research outputs
#969,413
of 23,043,346 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#122
of 8,368 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,622
of 327,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#6
of 223 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,043,346 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,368 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 327,287 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 223 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.