↓ Skip to main content

Achieving behaviour change for detection of Lynch syndrome using the Theoretical Domains Framework Implementation (TDFI) approach: a study protocol

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
Title
Achieving behaviour change for detection of Lynch syndrome using the Theoretical Domains Framework Implementation (TDFI) approach: a study protocol
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1331-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Natalie Taylor, Janet C. Long, Deborah Debono, Rachel Williams, Elizabeth Salisbury, Sharron O’Neill, Elizabeth Eykman, Jeffrey Braithwaite, Melvin Chin

Abstract

Lynch syndrome is an inherited disorder associated with a range of cancers, and found in 2-5 % of colorectal cancers. Lynch syndrome is diagnosed through a combination of significant family and clinical history and pathology. The definitive diagnostic germline test requires formal patient consent after genetic counselling. If diagnosed early, carriers of Lynch syndrome can undergo increased surveillance for cancers, which in turn can prevent late stage cancers, optimise treatment and decrease mortality for themselves and their relatives. However, over the past decade, international studies have reported that only a small proportion of individuals with suspected Lynch syndrome were referred for genetic consultation and possible genetic testing. The aim of this project is to use behaviour change theory and implementation science approaches to increase the number and speed of healthcare professional referrals of colorectal cancer patients with a high-likelihood risk of Lynch syndrome to appropriate genetic counselling services. The six-step Theoretical Domains Framework Implementation (TDFI) approach will be used at two large, metropolitan hospitals treating colorectal cancer patients. Steps are: 1) form local multidisciplinary teams to map current referral processes; 2) identify target behaviours that may lead to increased referrals using discussion supported by a retrospective audit; 3) identify barriers to those behaviours using the validated Influences on Patient Safety Behaviours Questionnaire and TDFI guided focus groups; 4) co-design interventions to address barriers using focus groups; 5) co-implement interventions; and 6) evaluate intervention impact. Chi square analysis will be used to test the difference in the proportion of high-likelihood risk Lynch syndrome patients being referred for genetic testing before and after intervention implementation. A paired t-test will be used to assess the mean time from the pathology test results to referral for high-likelihood Lynch syndrome patients pre-post intervention. Run charts will be used to continuously monitor change in referrals over time, based on scheduled monthly audits. This project is based on a tested and refined implementation strategy (TDFI approach). Enhancing the process of identifying and referring people at high-likelihood risk of Lynch syndrome for genetic counselling will improve outcomes for patients and their relatives, and potentially save public money.

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 readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 79 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 24%
Student > Master 16 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 11%
Other 4 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 17 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 15%
Psychology 9 11%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 21 26%
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 26 March 2017.
All research outputs
#15,364,458
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,567
of 7,646 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,915
of 300,258 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#79
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,646 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 300,258 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 97 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.