↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
101 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
Comparing tailored and narrative worksite interventions at increasing colonoscopy adherence in adults 50–75: A randomized controlled trial
Published in
Social Science & Medicine, December 2013
DOI 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.12.003
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Research has identified several communication strategies that could increase adherence to colorectal cancer screening recommendations. Two promising strategies are tailoring and narrative-based approaches. Tailoring is the personalization of information based on individual characteristics. Narrative-based approaches use stories about similar others to counter perceived barriers and cultivate self-efficacy. To compare these two approaches, a randomized controlled trial was carried out at 8 worksites in Indiana. Adults 50-75 (N = 209) received one of four messages about colorectal cancer screening: stock, narrative, tailored, tailored narrative. The primary outcome was whether participants filed a colonoscopy claim in the 18 months following the intervention. Individuals receiving narrative messages were 4 times more likely to screen than those not receiving narrative messages. Tailoring did not increase screening behavior overall. However, individuals with higher cancer information overload were 8 times more likely to screen if they received tailored messages. The results suggest that narrative-based approaches are more effective than tailoring at increasing colorectal cancer screening in worksite interventions. Tailoring may be valuable as a strategy for reaching individuals with high overload, perhaps as a follow-up effort to a larger communication campaign.

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.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 99 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 17%
Researcher 14 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 9%
Student > Postgraduate 5 5%
Other 15 15%
Unknown 29 29%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 19 19%
Social Sciences 18 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 30 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 11 December 2023.
All research outputs
#7,237,553
of 28,521,770 outputs
Outputs from Social Science & Medicine
#6,439
of 12,762 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,145
of 332,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Social Science & Medicine
#53
of 123 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,521,770 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,762 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.1. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 332,438 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 123 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 56% of its contemporaries.