| Title |
Exploring Racial Differences in Patient Centeredness of Care (PCC) During Breast Cancer (BC) Chemotherapy Clinical Visits
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40615-018-0503-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tinnikkar Angel Robertson-Jones, Madison M. Tissue, Mary Connolly, Sarah Frazier Gallups, Catherine M. Bender, Margaret Quinn Rosenzweig |
| Abstract |
The communication patterns between clinician and patient, described as the patient centeredness of care (PCC), may be a critically important etiology of breast cancer (BC) racial disparity. The purpose of this prospective, comparative pilot study was to qualitatively explore and code for PCC during the clinical visit of women undergoing BC chemotherapy and compare by race. Age-matched Black and White women were recruited. Audio recordings of clinical visits conducted prior to any cycle (except first) chemotherapy infusion were obtained and transcribed. Transcripts were blindly reviewed by three independent coders assigning PCC scores, ranging from 1 to 5, with lower scores indicating better PCC. Consensus was reached among reviewers via discussion. Dyads consisted of five Black (mean age 47) and five White (mean age 45) women undergoing BC chemotherapy. Twenty-four recordings were analyzed, 13 White and 11 Black. For all 22 PCC items, the mean scores were worse for Black women with significant differences (compared by chi-square analysis) noted for 6/22 items (27%). Qualitatively exploring clinician and patient communication patterns during the chemotherapy clinical visits informs the understanding of racial differences for symptom assessment, reporting, and management. These pilot findings inform future research exploring racial disparity in cancer treatment dose intensity. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 28 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 14% |
| Researcher | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 11% |
| Librarian | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 11 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Psychology | 1 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 12 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 03 July 2018.
All research outputs
#5,829,891
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities
#472
of 1,027 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,869
of 327,912 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities
#13
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,027 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.5. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 327,912 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 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.