↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
Does sharing good news buffer fear of bad news? A daily diary study of fear of cancer recurrence in couples approaching the first mammogram post‐diagnosis
Published in
Psycho-Oncology, July 2018
DOI 10.1002/pon.4813
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The core of fear of cancer recurrence (FCR)-a top concern of couples after successful breast cancer (BC) treatment-is fear of death. Daily relationship processes may be instrumental in regulating FCR as triggers of existential distress are encountered. We tested the hypothesis that daily capitalization, the process of sharing good news (capitalization attempts) to a partner perceived as responsive (responsiveness), buffers patient and spouse FCR as they confront the first mammogram post-diagnosis. Fifty-seven early-stage BC survivors and their spouses reported daily FCR, capitalization, and positivity of the disclosed event during a three-week diary period beginning two weeks before the first annual mammogram post-diagnosis. Dyadic multilevel path models estimated within-person effects of patient and spouse capitalization on same-day FCR, controlling for event positivity. Before the mammogram, capitalization attempts were unrelated to FCR, but for patients, responsiveness was predictive of greater same-day FCR. After the mammogram, for both partners, attempts were predictive of greater same-day FCR, yet responsiveness was predictive of lower FCR. Findings were largely inconsistent with the hypothesis that capitalization buffers existential distress. However, results revealed novel insights about daily dyadic processes that may characterize within-person adaptation to existential threat. Potential explanations for the differential links between capitalization and FCR based on timing (before versus after threat) and capitalization component (attempts versus responsiveness) are discussed.

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 2 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 53 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 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Student > Master 4 8%
Unspecified 2 4%
Professor 2 4%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 26 49%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 14 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 6%
Unspecified 2 4%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 27 51%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 21 August 2018.
All research outputs
#24,121,891
of 34,411,289 outputs
Outputs from Psycho-Oncology
#2,343
of 3,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#250,254
of 372,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psycho-Oncology
#36
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,411,289 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,244 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 372,103 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.