| Title |
A meta-analysis of the relationship between social constraints and distress in cancer patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Behavioral Medicine, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10865-014-9601-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rebecca N. Adams, Joseph G. Winger, Catherine E. Mosher |
| Abstract |
Social constraints on cancer-related disclosure have been associated with increased distress among cancer patients. The goals of this meta-analysis were: (1) to quantify the average strength of the relationships between social constraints and general and cancer-specific distress in cancer patients; and (2) to examine potential moderators of these relationships. A literature search was conducted using electronic databases, and 30 studies met inclusion criteria. Moderate, significant relationships were found between social constraints and both general distress (r = 0.37, 95 % CI 0.31-0.43) and cancer-specific distress (r = 0.37, 95 % CI 0.31-0.44). The relationship between social constraints and cancer-specific distress was stronger for studies of patients who, on average, had been diagnosed more recently. Relationships between social constraints and both general and cancer-specific distress did not vary by age or gender. Findings suggest that social constraints may be important to target in interventions to reduce distress in cancer patients, especially those who have been recently diagnosed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 82 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 23% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 12% |
| Researcher | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 11 | 13% |
| Unknown | 19 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 34 | 41% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 5% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 24 | 29% |
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 20 April 2017.
All research outputs
#18,445,779
of 22,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Behavioral Medicine
#933
of 1,071 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,522
of 252,790 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Behavioral Medicine
#10
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,071 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 252,790 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.