↓ Skip to main content

Creation of a new clinical framework – why women choose mastectomy versus breast conserving therapy

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
Creation of a new clinical framework – why women choose mastectomy versus breast conserving therapy
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12874-018-0533-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeffrey Gu, Gary Groot

Abstract

Clinical medicine has lagged behind other fields in understanding and utilizing frameworks to guide research. In this article, we introduce a new framework to examine why women choose mastectomy versus breast conserving therapy in early stage breast cancer, and highlight the importance of utilizing a conceptual framework to guide clinical research. The framework we present was developed through integrating previous literature, frameworks, theories, models, and the author's past research. We present a conceptual framework that illustrates the central domains that influence women's choice between mastectomy versus breast conserving therapy. These have been organized into three broad constructs: clinicopathological factors, physician factors, and individual factors with subgroups of sociodemographic, geographic, and individual belief factors. The aim of this framework is to provide a comprehensive basis to describe, examine, and explain the factors that influence women's choice of mastectomy versus breast conserving therapy at the individual level. We have developed a framework with the purpose of helping health care workers and policy makers better understand the multitude of factors that influence a patient's choice of therapy at an individual level. We hope this framework is useful for future scholars to utilize, challenge, and build upon in their own work on decision-making in the setting of breast cancer. For clinician-researchers who have limited experience with frameworks, this paper will highlight the importance of utilizing a conceptual framework to guide future research and provide an example.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 15%
Other 4 12%
Researcher 4 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 8 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 15%
Psychology 3 9%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 8 24%
Unknown 8 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 12 July 2018.
All research outputs
#4,160,860
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#652
of 2,102 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,128
of 328,450 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#21
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,102 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 328,450 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 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.