↓ Skip to main content

Causal Attribution of Breast Cancer by Survivors in French West Indies

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cancer Education, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
32 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
Causal Attribution of Breast Cancer by Survivors in French West Indies
Published in
Journal of Cancer Education, August 2016
DOI 10.1007/s13187-016-1096-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Philippe Kadhel, Caroline Schuster, Nathalie Grossat, Eustase Janky, Ali Ghassani

Abstract

Patients frequently ask about the cause of their breast cancer. To answer, physicians refer to breast cancer risk factors based on medical reports. We aim to assess these risk factors for the point of view of survivors, a point of view which seems to differ from that of medical references. We ran a survey with open- and closed-ended questionnaires on patients' opinions about risks factors both for women in general and for their own case. We also collected data on their sources of information on this subject. Most patients had no opinion. The most frequently cited risk factors were stress, then genetic causes, and poor diet. Internet was the leading source of information for patients, followed by physicians and magazines. Our study highlights the mismatch between breast cancer risk factors as perceived by scientists and by survivors. Survivors tend to focus on non-controllable risk factors. Taking into account attribution theories of life events, an awareness of patient opinion may be valuable for psychological support of survivors, and it may be informative to record the way in which patients attribute causality for life events such as breast cancer and, more generally, all type of cancer.

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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Researcher 3 9%
Other 2 6%
Librarian 2 6%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 11 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 8 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 11 34%
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 28 August 2016.
All research outputs
#20,338,537
of 22,884,315 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cancer Education
#1,021
of 1,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#295,346
of 338,387 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cancer Education
#19
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,884,315 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,141 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 338,387 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 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.