↓ Skip to main content

Development of Measure Yourself Concerns and Wellbeing for informal caregivers of people with cancer—a multicentred study

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
Title
Development of Measure Yourself Concerns and Wellbeing for informal caregivers of people with cancer—a multicentred study
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer, September 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00520-018-4422-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachel Jolliffe, Nicole Collaco, Helen Seers, Chris Farrell, Michael J. Sawkins, Marie J. Polley

Abstract

Measure Yourself Concerns and Wellbeing (MYCaW) is a validated person-centred measure of the concerns and wellbeing of people affected by cancer. Research suggests that the concerns of informal caregivers (ICs) are as complex and severely rated as people with cancer, yet MYCaW has only been used to represent cancer patients' concerns and wellbeing. This paper reports on the development of a new qualitative coding framework for MYCaW to capture the concerns of ICs, to better understand the needs of this group. This multicentred study involved collection of data from ICs receiving support from two UK cancer support charities (Penny Brohn UK and Cavendish Cancer Care). Qualitative codes were developed through a detailed thematic analysis of ICs' stated concerns. Thematic analysis of IC questionnaire data identified key themes which were translated into a coding framework with two overarching sections; (1) 'informal caregiver concerns for self' and (2) 'informal caregiver concerns for the person with cancer'. Supercategories with specific accompanying codes were developed for each section. Two further rounds of framework testing across different cohorts allowed for iterative development and refinement of the framework content. This is the first person-centred tool specifically designed for capturing IC's concerns through their own words. This coding framework will allow for IC data to be analysed using a rigorous and reproducible method, and therefore reported in a standardised way. This may also be of interest to those exploring the needs of ICs of people in other situations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Student > Master 2 7%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 10 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 7 23%
Psychology 3 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 7%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 12 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 27 September 2018.
All research outputs
#1,841,750
of 23,103,436 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#258
of 4,656 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,880
of 337,559 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#15
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,436 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,656 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 337,559 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.