↓ Skip to main content

Supportive care priorities of low-income Latina breast cancer survivors

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 Mendeley
Title
Supportive care priorities of low-income Latina breast cancer survivors
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer, May 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00520-018-4253-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alix G. Sleight, Kathleen Doyle Lyons, Cheryl Vigen, Heather Macdonald, Florence Clark

Abstract

This study investigated the supportive care needs of a sample of low-income Latina breast cancer survivors. Ninety-nine Spanish-speaking breast cancer survivors who self-identified as Latina and reported an income below the US Census Bureau low-income threshold were recruited from the oncology clinic of a major public safety net hospital. Eligible participants completed the supportive care needs survey (SCNS-SF34) and a demographic questionnaire. Ninety-three percent of respondents had unmet needs. The majority of frequently reported unmet needs involved (1) access to and delivery of health-related information and (2) physical function. These findings appear to contrast with those of other studies of supportive care needs in heterogeneous cancer survivors, most of which describe psychological concerns as most urgent. Participants espoused information-related needs with a higher frequency than many other samples of cancer survivors. This study population may also require a particularly high level of assistance with overcoming participation restrictions. Further research is needed to understand these discrepancies and to address unmet needs across all domains.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 73 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 10%
Researcher 6 8%
Other 4 5%
Other 14 19%
Unknown 28 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 17 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 18%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Psychology 2 3%
Computer Science 1 1%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 32 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 26 April 2019.
All research outputs
#7,112,268
of 22,691,736 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#1,728
of 4,518 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,329
of 326,629 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#58
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,691,736 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,518 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 326,629 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.