↓ Skip to main content

Recruiting Young Adult Cancer Survivors for Behavioral Research

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
107 Mendeley
Title
Recruiting Young Adult Cancer Survivors for Behavioral Research
Published in
Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, July 2012
DOI 10.1007/s10880-012-9317-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carolyn Rabin, Santina Horowitz, Bess Marcus

Abstract

Young adults have been dramatically underrepresented in cancer survivorship research. One contributing factor is the difficulty recruiting this population. To identify effective recruitment strategies, the current study assessed the yield of strategies used to recruit young survivors for an exercise intervention including: clinic-based recruitment, recruitment at cancer-related events, mailings, telephone-based recruitment, advertising on the internet, radio, television and social networking media, distributing brochures and word-of-mouth referrals. When taking into account the strategies for which we could track the number of survivors approached, recruitment at an oncology clinic was the most productive: 38 % of those approached were screened and 8 % enrolled. When evaluating which strategy yielded the greatest percentage of the sample, however, mailings were the most productive. Given widespread use of the internet and social networking by young adults, investigators should also consider these low-cost recruitment strategies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 105 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 13%
Researcher 13 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 12%
Student > Postgraduate 10 9%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Other 19 18%
Unknown 28 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 20 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 12%
Sports and Recreations 7 7%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 30 28%
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 25 July 2012.
All research outputs
#12,857,407
of 22,671,366 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings
#244
of 440 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,060
of 163,942 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,671,366 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 440 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 163,942 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.