↓ Skip to main content

Closing the Loop: Action Research in a Multimodal Hereditary Cancer Patient Conference is an Effective Tool to Assess and Address Patient Needs

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cancer Education, May 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
Closing the Loop: Action Research in a Multimodal Hereditary Cancer Patient Conference is an Effective Tool to Assess and Address Patient Needs
Published in
Journal of Cancer Education, May 2012
DOI 10.1007/s13187-012-0373-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carin R. Espenschied, Deborah J. MacDonald, Julie O. Culver, Sharon Sand, Karen Hurley, Kimberly C. Banks, Jeffrey N. Weitzel, Kathleen R. Blazer

Abstract

This paper describes the use of action research in a patient conference to provide updated hereditary cancer information, explore patient and family member needs and experiences related to genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA), elicit feedback on how to improve the GCRA process, and inform future research efforts. Invitees completed GCRA at City of Hope or collaborating facilities and had a BRCA mutation or a strong personal or family history of breast cancer. Action research activities were facilitated by surveys, round table discussions, and reflection time to engage participants, faculty, and researchers in multiple cycles of reciprocal feedback. The multimodal action research design effectively engaged conference participants to share their experiences, needs, and ideas for improvements to the GCRA process. Participants indicated that they highly valued the information and resources provided and desired similar future conferences. The use of action research in a patient conference is an innovative and effective approach to provide health education, elicit experiences, identify and help address needs of high-risk patients and their family members, and generate research hypotheses. Insights gained yielded valuable feedback to inform clinical care, future health services research, and continuing medical education activities. These methods may also be effective in other practice settings.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 3%
United Kingdom 1 3%
Austria 1 3%
Unknown 30 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 27%
Student > Master 6 18%
Researcher 4 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Other 3 9%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 3 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 42%
Psychology 7 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Computer Science 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 5 15%
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 May 2012.
All research outputs
#18,306,425
of 22,665,794 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cancer Education
#784
of 1,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,108
of 163,862 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cancer Education
#13
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,665,794 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 1,122 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 163,862 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.