↓ Skip to main content

Determinants of Rectal Cancer Patients’ Decisions on Where to Receive Surgery: a Qualitative Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
Determinants of Rectal Cancer Patients’ Decisions on Where to Receive Surgery: a Qualitative Analysis
Published in
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, September 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11605-018-3830-x
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Current literature suggests surgeons who perform large volumes of rectal cancer resections achieve superior outcomes, but only about half of rectal cancer resections are performed by high-volume surgeons in comprehensive hospitals. Little is known about the considerations of patients with rectal cancer when deciding where to receive surgery. A purposive sample of stage II/III rectal adenocarcinoma survivors diagnosed 2013-2015 were identified through the Iowa Cancer Registry and interviewed by telephone about factors influencing decisions on where to receive rectal cancer surgery. Fifteen survivors with an average age of 63 were interviewed: 60% were male, 53% resided in non-metropolitan areas, and 60% received surgery at low-volume facilities. Most patients considered surgeon volume and experience to be important determinants of outcomes, but few assessed it. Recommendation from a trusted source, usually a physician, appeared to be a main determinant of where patients received surgery. Patients who chose low-volume centers noted comfort and familiarity as important decision factors. Most rectal cancer patients in our sample relied on physician referrals to decide where to receive surgery. Interventions facilitating more informed decision-making by patients and referring providers may be warranted.

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 7 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 22 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 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 18%
Student > Bachelor 3 14%
Student > Master 2 9%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 5%
Lecturer 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 8 36%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 6 27%
Social Sciences 2 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 9%
Engineering 1 5%
Unknown 11 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 14 September 2018.
All research outputs
#8,436,218
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery
#742
of 2,489 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#137,186
of 347,534 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery
#21
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,489 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 347,534 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 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 64% of its contemporaries.