↓ Skip to main content

Approaches to decision-making among late-stage melanoma patients: a multifactorial investigation

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
Title
Approaches to decision-making among late-stage melanoma patients: a multifactorial investigation
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer, August 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00520-018-4395-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah B. Garrett, Corey M. Abramson, Katharine A. Rendle, Daniel Dohan

Abstract

The treatment decisions of melanoma patients are poorly understood. Most research on cancer patient decision-making focuses on limited components of specific treatment decisions. This study aimed to holistically characterize late-stage melanoma patients' approaches to treatment decision-making in order to advance understanding of patient influences and supports. (1) Exploratory analysis of longitudinal qualitative data to identify themes that characterize patient decision-making. (2) Pattern analysis of decision-making themes using an innovative method for visualizing qualitative data: a hierarchically-clustered heatmap. Participants were 13 advanced melanoma patients at a large academic medical center. Exploratory analysis revealed eight themes. Heatmap analysis indicated two broad types of patient decision-makers. "Reliant outsiders" relied on providers for medical information, demonstrated low involvement in decision-making, showed a low or later-in-care interest in clinical trials, and expressed altruistic motives. "Active insiders" accessed substantial medical information and expertise in their networks, consulted with other doctors, showed early and substantial interest in trials, demonstrated high involvement in decision-making, and employed multiple decision-making strategies. We identified and characterized two distinct approaches to decision-making among patients with late-stage melanoma. These differences spanned a wide range of factors (e.g., behaviors, resources, motivations). Enhanced understanding of patients as decision-makers and the factors that shape their decision-making may help providers to better support patient understanding, improve patient-provider communication, and support shared decision-making.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 10%
Student > Master 3 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 15 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 11 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 7%
Computer Science 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 18 44%
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 31 August 2018.
All research outputs
#17,987,988
of 23,100,534 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#3,518
of 4,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,834
of 334,082 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#82
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,100,534 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,655 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 334,082 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 99 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.