↓ Skip to main content

Coordination of Care for Early‐stage Breast Cancer Patients*

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, June 2004
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
Title
Coordination of Care for Early‐stage Breast Cancer Patients*
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, June 2004
DOI 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2001.10130.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nina A. Bickell, Gary J. Young

Abstract

Little is known about how care is coordinated for patients with diseases requiring multidisciplinary treatments. How complex care is coordinated may affect a patient's chance of receiving the full complement of care provided by multiple physicians. We sought to describe approaches used to coordinate care for women with early-stage breast cancer, a disease often treated by multiple different disciplines in the outpatient setting. Case studies of 6 hospitals with in-depth semi-structured interviews with providers of breast cancer care and their support staff. Five hospitals in downstate New York and 1 hospital in upstate New York. Sixty-seven interviews were conducted including 35 physicians, 9 nurses, 4 senior clinical or quality directors, 10 administrative assistants, and 9 patient educators and navigators. Content analysis of interviews revealed 7 different coordination mechanisms including tracking of referrals, patient support, regularly-scheduled multidisciplinary meetings, feedback of performance data, use of protocols, computerized systems, and a single physical location. No site had any systematic mechanism to track results of referrals or receipt of care provided by other physicians. All physicians used follow-up appointments to check on patients' receipt of care, but only half of the physicians had an approach to follow up missed appointments. Real-time multidisciplinary meetings with a patient management focus and systematic use of patient support programs, such as patient educators and navigators, were perceived to be valuable. Numerous coordination mechanisms exist. No site has the ability to systematically track care provided by multiple different specialists. The most valued mechanisms are under the hospital's aegis. Hospitals should consider implementing coordination mechanisms to improve delivery of multidisciplinary care.

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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 4%
Unknown 23 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 33%
Student > Master 5 21%
Researcher 4 17%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 2 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 50%
Social Sciences 3 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Psychology 1 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 3 13%
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 13 May 2015.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#6,327
of 8,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,487
of 62,405 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#59
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,173 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.1. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 62,405 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.