↓ Skip to main content

Psycho‐oncology assessment in Chinese populations: a systematic review of quality of life and psychosocial measures

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Cancer Care, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 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
Psycho‐oncology assessment in Chinese populations: a systematic review of quality of life and psychosocial measures
Published in
European Journal of Cancer Care, August 2015
DOI 10.1111/ecc.12367
Pubmed ID
Authors

M.K. Hyde, S.K. Chambers, D. Shum, D. Ip, J. Dunn

Abstract

This systematic review describes psychosocial and quality of life (QOL) measures used in psycho-oncology research with cancer patients and caregivers in China. Medline and PsycINFO databases were searched (1980-2014). Studies reviewed met the following criteria: English language; peer-reviewed; sampled Chinese cancer patients/caregivers; developed, validated or assessed psychometric properties of psychosocial or QOL outcome measures; and reported validation data. The review examined characteristics of measures and participants, translation and cultural adaptation processes and psychometric properties of the measures. Ninety five studies met review criteria. Common characteristics of studies reviewed were they: assessed primarily QOL measures, sampled patients with breast, colorectal, or head and neck cancer, and validated existing measures (>80%) originating in North America or Europe. Few studies reported difficulties translating measures. Regarding psychometric properties of the measures >50% of studies reported subscale reliabilities <α = 0.70, <50% reported test-retest reliability, and <30% reported divergent validity. Few reported sensitivity, specificity or responsiveness. Improved accuracy and transparency of reporting for translation, cultural adaptation and psychometric testing of psychosocial measures is needed. Developing support structures for translating and validating psychosocial measures would enable this and ensure Chinese psycho-oncology clinical practice and research keeps pace with international focus on patient reported outcome measures and data management.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 66 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 16%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Researcher 6 9%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 19 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 17 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 22%
Social Sciences 6 9%
Psychology 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 19 28%
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 25 April 2017.
All research outputs
#19,944,091
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Cancer Care
#999
of 1,314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#190,263
of 277,478 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Cancer Care
#24
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,314 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 277,478 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.