↓ Skip to main content

Understanding low colorectal cancer screening uptake in South Asian faith communities in England – a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 Mendeley
Title
Understanding low colorectal cancer screening uptake in South Asian faith communities in England – a qualitative study
Published in
BMC Public Health, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-2334-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cecily K. Palmer, Mary C. Thomas, Lesley M. McGregor, Christian von Wagner, Rosalind Raine

Abstract

Colorectal cancer screening uptake within the South Asian population in England is approximately half that of the general population (33 % vs 61 %), and varies by Muslim (31.9 %), Sikh (34.6 %) and Hindu (43.7 %) faith background. This study sought to explore reasons for low uptake of CRC screening in South Asian communities and for the variability of low uptake between three faith communities; and to identify strategies by which uptake might be improved. We interviewed 16 'key informants' representing communities from the three largest South Asian faith backgrounds (Islam, Hinduism and Sikhism) in London, England. Reasons for low colorectal cancer screening uptake were overwhelmingly shared across South Asian faith groups. These were: limitations posed by written English; limitations posed by any written language; reliance on younger family members; low awareness of colorectal cancer and screening; and difficulties associated with faeces. Non-written information delivered verbally and interactively within faith or community settings was preferred across faith communities. Efforts to increase accessibility to colorectal cancer screening in South Asian communities should use local language broadcasts on ethnic media and face-to-face approaches within community and faith settings to increase awareness of colorectal cancer and screening, and address challenges posed by written materials.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Ghana 1 1%
Unknown 87 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 16%
Researcher 12 13%
Student > Bachelor 11 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Other 6 7%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 29 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 15%
Social Sciences 8 9%
Psychology 7 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 33 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 10 December 2015.
All research outputs
#14,239,245
of 22,829,683 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#10,342
of 14,871 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#142,183
of 274,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#183
of 269 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,683 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,871 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 274,923 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 269 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.