↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
52 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.
Article details
Title
Shared decision-making – Rhetoric and reality: Women’s experiences and perceptions of adjuvant treatment decision-making for breast cancer
Published in
Journal of Health Psychology, January 2017
DOI 10.1177/1359105316689141
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

This interview-based study uses phenomenology as a theoretical framework and thematic analysis to challenge existing explanatory frameworks of shared decision-making, in an exploration of women's experiences and perceptions of shared decision-making for adjuvant treatment in breast cancer. Three themes emerged are as follows: (1) women's desire to participate in shared decision-making, (2) the degree to which shared decision-making is perceived to be shared and (3) to what extent are women empowered within shared decision-making. Studying breast cancer patients' subjective experiences of adjuvant treatment decision-making provides a broader perspective on patient participatory role preferences and doctor-patient power dynamics within shared decision-making for breast cancer.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 17%
Lecturer 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Researcher 4 8%
Other 3 6%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 15 29%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 12%
Linguistics 5 10%
Psychology 5 10%
Social Sciences 5 10%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 17 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 03 March 2017.
All research outputs
#1,412,635
of 22,947,506 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Health Psychology
#211
of 2,089 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,312
of 417,402 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Health Psychology
#12
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,947,506 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,089 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 417,402 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 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.