↓ Skip to main content

The complicated ‘Yes’: Decision-making processes and receptivity to lung cancer screening among head and neck cancer survivors

Overview of attention for article published in Patient Education & Counseling, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
62 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
The complicated ‘Yes’: Decision-making processes and receptivity to lung cancer screening among head and neck cancer survivors
Published in
Patient Education & Counseling, April 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.pec.2018.04.012
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Shared decision making (SDM) is recommended when offering lung cancer screening (LCS)-which presents challenges with tobacco-related cancer survivors because they were excluded from clinical trials. Our objective was to characterize head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors' knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs toward LCS and SDM. Between November 2017 and June 2018, we conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 19 HNC survivors, focusing on patients' cancer and smoking history, receptivity to and perceptions of LCS, and decision-making preferences RESULTS: Participants were receptive to LCS, referencing their successful HNC outcomes. They perceived that LCS might reduce uncertainty and emphasized the potential benefits of early diagnosis. Some expressed concern over costs or overdiagnosis, but most minimized potential harms, including false positives and radiation exposure. Participants preferred in-person LCS discussions, often ideally with their cancer specialist. HNC survivors may have overly optimistic expectations for LCS, and clinicians need to account for this in SDM discussions. Supporting these patients in making informed decisions will be challenging because we lack clinical data on the potential benefits and harms of LCS for cancer survivors. While some patients prefer discussing LCS with their cancer specialists, the ability of specialists to support high-quality decision making is uncertain.

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 profile of 1 X user 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 62 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 %
Unknown 62 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 13%
Researcher 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 23 37%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 8 13%
Psychology 8 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 13%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 27 44%
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 02 May 2018.
All research outputs
#31,221,391
of 34,404,538 outputs
Outputs from Patient Education & Counseling
#4,275
of 4,782 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#333,340
of 370,439 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient Education & Counseling
#49
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,404,538 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 4,782 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. 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 370,439 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 70 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.