↓ Skip to main content

Psychosocial consequences of diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer and evaluation of the need for a lung cancer specific instrument using focus group methodology

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
Title
Psychosocial consequences of diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer and evaluation of the need for a lung cancer specific instrument using focus group methodology
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer, June 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00520-018-4291-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Milou Looijmans, Annick S. van Manen, Marjan J. Traa, Jeroen S. Kloover, Bart L. J. Kessels, Jolanda de Vries

Abstract

Patients with lung cancer (LC) have high rates of psychosocial symptoms and international guidelines recommend regular psychosocial screening during treatment. This study evaluates psychosocial consequences of diagnosis and treatment of LC in a qualitative way and evaluates the need for a LC specific screening instrument. Focus group meetings with LC patients were divided by treatment type. Patients discussed psychological and social consequences of diagnosis and treatment. Major themes were identified using content analysis. Themes were re-evaluated in a subsequent focus group, in accordance with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) guidelines. Patients reported a range of psychosocial consequences, such as frustration due to physical limitations, fear of recurrence, sadness of leaving behind partner and children, and disappointing social support. Patients treated with palliative intent specifically indicated insecurities about the future. Patients from all treatment modalities indicated a need for family support during treatment. No themes specific to LC arose. Patients with LC are coping with a range of psychosocial consequences, independent of the type of treatment they receive. Fear of recurrence/metastasis and insecurity about the future were more prominent in patients receiving palliative chemotherapy. Themes were not specific to LC; therefore, a screening instrument specific for the LC population does not seem required. However, the current standard for screening is considered insufficiently sensitive and a stepped screening approach with specific screening tools and a clinical interview is suggested as usual care.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 80 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Student > Master 5 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Researcher 4 5%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 36 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 15 19%
Psychology 9 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 8%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 37 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 15 December 2018.
All research outputs
#13,201,027
of 23,267,128 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#2,461
of 4,681 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,705
of 329,413 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#67
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,267,128 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,681 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 329,413 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.