↓ Skip to main content

Using a Delphi process to determine optimal care for patients with pancreatic cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Using a Delphi process to determine optimal care for patients with pancreatic cancer
Published in
Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology, January 2016
DOI 10.1111/ajco.12450
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elizabeth A Burmeister, Susan J Jordan, Dianne L O'Connell, Vanessa L Beesley, David Goldstein, Helen M Gooden, Monika Janda, Neil D Merrett, David Wyld, Rachel E Neale, for The Pancreatic Cancer Clinical Working Group

Abstract

Overall 5-year survival for pancreatic cancer is ∼5%. Optimizing the care that pancreatic cancer patients receive may be one way of improving outcomes. The objective of this study was to establish components of care which Australian health professionals believe important to optimally manage patients with pancreatic cancer. Using a Delphi process, a multidisciplinary panel of 250 health professionals were invited to provide a list of factors they considered important for optimal care of pancreatic cancer patients. They were then asked to score and then rescore (from one [no importance/disagree] to 10 [very important/agree]) the factors. The mean and coefficient of variation scores were calculated and categorized into three levels of importance. Overall, 63 (66% of those sent the final questionnaire; 25% of those initially invited) health professionals from nine disciplines completed the final scoring of 55 statements/factors encompassing themes of presentation/staging, surgery and biliary obstruction, multidisciplinary team details and oncology. Mean scores ranged from 3.7 to 9.7 with the highest related to communication and patient assessment. There was substantial intra- and interdisciplinary variation in views about MDT membership and roles. Overall, the opinions of Australian health professionals reflect international guideline recommended care; however, they identified a number of additional factors focusing on where patients should be treated, the importance of clear communication and the need for multidisciplinary care which were not included in current clinical practice guidelines. Differences in priorities between specialty groups were also identified.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 5 13%
Other 4 11%
Student > Master 4 11%
Researcher 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 17 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 13%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Engineering 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 18 47%
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 23 January 2016.
All research outputs
#17,285,668
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology
#265
of 572 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#244,798
of 403,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology
#7
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 572 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 403,256 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.