↓ Skip to main content

Treatment Preferences for Active Surveillance versus Active Treatment among Men with Low-Risk Prostate Cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
59 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
Treatment Preferences for Active Surveillance versus Active Treatment among Men with Low-Risk Prostate Cancer
Published in
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, July 2016
DOI 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-15-1079
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Due to the concerns about the overtreatment of low-risk prostate cancer (PCa), active surveillance (AS) is now a recommended alternative to the active treatments (AT) of surgery and radiotherapy. However, AS is not widely utilized, partially due to psychological and decision-making factors associated with treatment preferences. In a longitudinal cohort study, we conducted pretreatment telephone interviews (N=1,140, 69.3% participation) with newly diagnosed, low-risk PCa patients (PSA<10, Gleason<6) from Kaiser Permanente Northern California. We assessed psychological and decision-making variables, and treatment preference [AS, AT, No Preference (NP)]. Men were 61.5 (SD=7.3) years old, 24 days (median) post-diagnosis, and 81.1% white. Treatment preferences were: 39.3% AS, 30.9% AT, and 29.7% NP. Multinomial logistic regression revealed that men preferring AS (vs. AT) were older (OR=1.64, CI 1.07-2.51), more educated (OR=2.05, CI 1.12-3.74), had greater PCa knowledge (OR=1.77, CI 1.43-2.18) and greater awareness of having low-risk cancer (OR=3.97, CI 1.96-8.06), but also were less certain about their treatment preference (OR=0.57, CI 0.41 - 0.8), had greater PCa anxiety (OR=1.22, CI 1.003-1.48), and preferred a shared treatment decision (OR=2.34, CI 1.37-3.99). Similarly, men preferring NP (vs. AT) were less certain about treatment preference, preferred a shared decision, and had greater knowledge. Although a substantial proportion of men preferred AS, this was associated with anxiety and uncertainty, suggesting that this may be a difficult choice. Increasing the appropriate use of AS for low-risk PCa will require additional reassurance and information, and reaching men almost immediately post-diagnosis while the decision-making is ongoing.

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 4 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 59 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 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Student > Master 6 10%
Other 5 8%
Other 15 25%
Unknown 14 24%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 19%
Psychology 9 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Engineering 3 5%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 20 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 20 November 2019.
All research outputs
#9,620,814
of 34,457,357 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
#2,400
of 5,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,174
of 335,059 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
#22
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,457,357 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,721 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 335,059 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.