↓ Skip to main content

Feasibility evaluation of an online tool to guide decisions for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers

Overview of attention for article published in Familial Cancer, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
Title
Feasibility evaluation of an online tool to guide decisions for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers
Published in
Familial Cancer, October 2012
DOI 10.1007/s10689-012-9577-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elizabeth A. Schackmann, Diego F. Munoz, Meredith A. Mills, Sylvia K. Plevritis, Allison W. Kurian

Abstract

Women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutations face difficult decisions about managing their high risks of breast and ovarian cancer. We developed an online tool to guide decisions about cancer risk reduction (available at: http://brcatool.stanford.edu ), and recruited patients and clinicians to test its feasibility. We developed questionnaires for women with BRCA1/2 mutations and clinicians involved in their care, incorporating the System Usability Scale (SUS) and the Center for Healthcare Evaluation Provider Satisfaction Questionnaire (CHCE-PSQ). We enrolled BRCA1/2 mutation carriers who were seen by local physicians or participating in a national advocacy organization, and we enrolled clinicians practicing at Stanford University and in the surrounding community. Forty BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and 16 clinicians participated. Both groups found the tool easy to use, with SUS scores of 82.5-85 on a scale of 1-100; we did not observe differences according to patient age or gene mutation. General satisfaction was high, with a mean score of 4.28 (standard deviation (SD) 0.96) for patients, and 4.38 (SD 0.89) for clinicians, on a scale of 1-5. Most patients (77.5 %) were comfortable using the tool at home. Both patients and clinicians agreed that the decision tool could improve patient-doctor encounters (mean scores 4.50 and 4.69, on a 1-5 scale). Patients and health care providers rated the decision tool highly on measures of usability and clinical relevance. These results will guide a larger study of the tool's impact on clinical decisions.

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 readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 3%
France 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 72 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 17%
Student > Master 9 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 17 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 11%
Psychology 6 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 8%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Other 16 21%
Unknown 17 22%
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 01 March 2013.
All research outputs
#18,331,227
of 22,699,621 outputs
Outputs from Familial Cancer
#416
of 558 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,356
of 176,018 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Familial Cancer
#8
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,699,621 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 558 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 176,018 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.