Cancer screening is widely practiced and participation is promoted by various social, technical, and commercial drivers, but there are growing concerns about the emerging harms, risks, and costs of cancer screening. Deliberative democracy methods engage citizens in dialogue on substantial and complex problems: especially when evidence and values are important and people need time to understand and consider the relevant issues. Information derived from such deliberations can provide important guidance to cancer screening policies: citizens' values are made explicit, revealing what really matters to people and why. Policy makers can see what informed, rather than uninformed, citizens would decide on the provision of services and information on cancer screening. Caveats can be elicited to guide changes to existing policies and practices. Policies that take account of citizens' opinions through a deliberative democracy process can be considered more legitimate, justifiable, and feasible than those that don't.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 16 June 2015.
All research outputs
#3,139,010
of 33,903,899 outputs
Outputs from JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
#2,155
of 9,778 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,167
of 344,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
#30
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,903,899 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,778 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 344,043 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 105 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
