↓ 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 (84th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
174 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
Applying symptom appraisal models to understand sociodemographic differences in responses to possible cancer symptoms: a research agenda
Published in
British Journal of Cancer, March 2015
DOI 10.1038/bjc.2015.39
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Background:Sociodemographic inequalities in the stage of diagnosis and cancer survival may be partly due to differences in the appraisal interval (time from noticing a bodily change to perceiving a reason to discuss symptoms with a health-care professional). A number of symptom appraisal models have been developed describing the psychological factors that underlie how people make sense of symptoms, although none explicitly focus on sociodemographic characteristics.Methods:We therefore conducted a conceptual review synthesising all symptom appraisal models, and focus on potential links with sociodemographics that could be the focus of future research.Results:Common psychological elements across nine symptom appraisal models included knowledge, attention, expectation and identity, all of which could be sensitive to sociodemographic factors. For example, lower socioeconomic status (SES), male sex and older age are associated with lower health literacy generally and lower cancer symptom knowledge. Limited attentional resources, lower expectations about health and lack of social support also hamper symptom interpretation, and would be likely to be more prevalent in those from lower SES backgrounds. Symptom heuristics ('rules of thumb') may lead to symptoms being normalised because they are common within the social network, potentially disadvantaging older populations.Conclusions:A better understanding of the processes through which people interpret their symptoms, and the way these processes differ by sociodemographic factors, could help guide the development of interventions with the aim of reducing inequalities in cancer outcomes.British Journal of Cancer advance online publication, 3 March 2015; doi:10.1038/bjc.2015.39 www.bjcancer.com.

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 174 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 2 1%
Unknown 172 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 10%
Student > Master 17 10%
Researcher 16 9%
Student > Bachelor 13 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 5%
Other 31 18%
Unknown 70 40%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 21%
Psychology 26 15%
Social Sciences 11 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Other 12 7%
Unknown 77 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 04 November 2015.
All research outputs
#3,592,821
of 26,802,131 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Cancer
#2,080
of 11,161 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,298
of 272,620 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Cancer
#80
of 142 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,802,131 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,161 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 272,620 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 142 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.