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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Experiences With a Self-Reported Mobile Phone-Based System Among Patients With Colorectal Cancer: A Qualitative Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
JMIR mHealth and uHealth, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2196/mhealth.5426 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jenny Drott, Maria Vilhelmsson, Karin Kjellgren, Carina Berterö |
| Abstract |
In cancer care, mobile phone-based systems are becoming more widely used in the assessment, monitoring, and management of side effects. To explore the experiences of patients with colorectal cancer on using a mobile phone-based system for reporting neurotoxic side effects. Eleven patients were interviewed (ages 44-68 years). A semistructured interview guide was used to perform telephone interviews. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed with qualitative content analysis. The patients' experiences of using a mobile phone-based system were identified and constructed as: "being involved," "pacing oneself," and "managing the questions." "Being involved" refers to their individual feelings. Patients were participating in their own care by being observant of the side effects they were experiencing. They were aware that the answers they gave were monitored in real time and taken into account by health care professionals when planning further treatment. "Pacing oneself" describes how the patients can have an impact on the time and place they choose to answer the questions. Answering the questionnaire was easy, and despite the substantial number of questions, it was quickly completed. "Managing the questions" pointed out that the patients needed to be observant because of the construction of the questions. They could not routinely answer all the questions. Patients understood that side effects can vary during the cycles of treatment and need to be assessed repeatedly during treatment. This mobile phone-based system reinforced the patients' feeling of involvement in their own care. The patients were comfortable with the technology and appreciated that the system was not time consuming. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 24% |
| Unknown | 12 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 16% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 11% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 8% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 15 | 39% |
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 09 June 2016.
All research outputs
#20,660,571
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from JMIR mHealth and uHealth
#2,334
of 2,560 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#273,477
of 357,336 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JMIR mHealth and uHealth
#50
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,560 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. 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 357,336 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 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.