↓ Skip to main content

Survivorship care models for breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Supportive Care in Cancer, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
Title
Survivorship care models for breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors: a systematic review
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00520-018-4197-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yu Ke, Terence Ng, Alexandre Chan

Abstract

Well-elucidated survivorship care models are pertinent in the long-term management of cancer survivors. This review aims to update existing literature and evaluate the key components of such models with a focus on breast, colorectal, and adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors. The PubMed electronic database were searched comprehensively for relevant publications in English through February 2017. Additional manual searches were conducted for reference lists and official guidelines published by oncology societies. Included studies addressed the correct cancer type, elaborated on each model's structure and provided patient-related outcome data to support its model's effectiveness if applicable. Among the 25 included studies, six articles described survivorship models applicable to all cancer types, and the remaining focused on breast cancer (n = 10), colorectal cancer (n = 3), and AYA cancer survivors (n = 6). Shared-care model was largely described for all cancer types whereas multidisciplinary model predominated for AYA cancer survivors. Upon evaluation, these models described the essential components of survivorship care fairly well except for the care coordination component. Also, the definition of time points of care was vague and noncomprehensive. The reviewed survivorship model studies were comprehensive but were limited by a lack of existing rigorous evaluation efforts to assess their effectiveness. This review further provided valuable recommendations for future methodological evaluation of such models. This review has highlighted care coordination as an area for improvement and emphasized the importance of obtaining data on the effectiveness of these survivorship models to ensure satisfactory quality of life and health outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users 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 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 88 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 15%
Student > Master 13 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Other 6 7%
Other 18 20%
Unknown 21 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 19%
Social Sciences 7 8%
Engineering 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 28 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 30 May 2018.
All research outputs
#14,390,935
of 23,047,237 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#2,828
of 4,646 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,473
of 326,535 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#82
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,047,237 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,646 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 326,535 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.