↓ Skip to main content

Influences on uptake of cancer screening in mental health service users: a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users

Readers on

mendeley
173 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
Influences on uptake of cancer screening in mental health service users: a qualitative study
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1505-4
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Cancers are a leading cause of death worldwide. People with mental illness are 30 % more likely to die from cancer than the general population. One reason for this may be low uptake of nationally offered cancer screening tests by people with mental illness. We aimed to identify barriers and facilitators for breast, cervical and bowel cancer screening uptake by people with mental illness in order to inform interventions to promote equal access. The interview study was conducted in both urban and rural settings. The study was informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework, using framework analysis and triangulation across participant groups. Participants included 45 mental health service users (service users) eligible for cancer screening, 29 mental health professionals and 11 professionals involved in cancer screening. Themes emerging from the data that affected uptake included knowledge of screening programmes by both service users and healthcare providers; knowledge of, and attitudes towards, mental illness; health service-delivery factors; service users' beliefs and concerns about cancer screening, and practical issues. These are relevant to different stages of the screening process. Service users do not receive invitations to screening or cancer testing kits if they are admitted to hospital. They are not routinely invited for screening if they are not registered with a general practitioner (GP). Lack of integrated care means that mental health staff do not know if someone is overdue for a test and cancer screening is often not considered during health promotion. Barriers including information processing problems, the extent to which the screening process aggravates symptoms, poor staff client relationships and travel difficulties vary between individuals. Screening professionals are motivated to help, but may lack time or training to manage mental health needs. Reactive measures are available, but service users must request help which they may find difficult. There are specific barriers to cancer screening uptake for mental health service users that prevent equality of care. Interventions that can be personalised are needed at individual, policy and service-delivery levels. Primary and secondary care staff and policy-makers should work together to develop an integrated approach to cancer screening in this population.

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 14 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 173 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 173 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 12%
Student > Master 19 11%
Student > Bachelor 15 9%
Researcher 15 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 5%
Other 31 18%
Unknown 64 37%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 29 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 28 16%
Psychology 14 8%
Social Sciences 13 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 2%
Other 21 12%
Unknown 65 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 22 September 2021.
All research outputs
#6,447,347
of 34,528,520 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,592
of 10,228 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,032
of 336,383 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#46
of 188 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,528,520 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,228 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 336,383 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 188 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.