↓ Skip to main content

An evidence‐based specialist breast nurse role in practice: a multicentre implementation study

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Cancer Care, April 2003
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
An evidence‐based specialist breast nurse role in practice: a multicentre implementation study
Published in
European Journal of Cancer Care, April 2003
DOI 10.1046/j.1365-2354.2003.00331.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Barbara Liebert, Michael Parle, Celia Roberts, Sally Redman, Sue Carrick, Jillian Gallagher, Judy Simpson, Kitty Ng, M Asaduzzaman Khan, Kate White, Glenn Salkeld, Meg Lewis, Ian Olver, Grantly Gill, Mary Marchant, Alan Coates, Robert North, Gina Akers, Andrea Cannon, Christine Gray, Jeanette Liebelt, Alan Rodger, Michael Henderson, David Stoney, Pat Hickey, Stephen Archer, Cecily Metcalf, James Trotter

Abstract

The objective of this study was to examine the feasibility, implementation, acceptability and impact of an evidence-based specialist breast care nurse (SBN) model of care in Australia. Primary data were collected from four diverse Australian breast cancer treatment centres over a 12-month period. The design was a multicentre demonstration project. Information about the provision of care and patient needs was collected through prospective logs. Structured interviews were conducted with women who received the SBN intervention (N = 167) and with a control group of women treated prior to the intervention period (N = 133). Health professionals (N = 47) were interviewed about their experience of the SBN. Almost all women had contact with an SBN at five scheduled consultations and 67% of women in the intervention group requested at least one additional consultation with the SBN. Women in the intervention group were more likely to receive hospital fact sheets and to be told about and participate in clinical trials. Ninety-eight per cent of women reported that the availability of an SBN would affect their choice of hospital, with 48% indicating that they would recommend only a hospital with a SBN available. Health professionals reported that SBNs improved continuity of care, information and support for the women, and resulted in more appropriate referrals and use of the time of other members of the team. In conclusion, the SBN model is feasible and acceptable within diverse Australian treatment centres; there is evidence that some aspects of care were improved by the SBN.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 15%
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 10 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 9 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 15%
Social Sciences 3 8%
Psychology 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 12 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 01 January 2006.
All research outputs
#8,534,976
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Cancer Care
#471
of 1,314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,688
of 62,841 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Cancer Care
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,314 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 62,841 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.