↓ Skip to main content

How do surgeons decide to refer patients for adjuvant cancer treatment? Protocol for a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 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.
Title
How do surgeons decide to refer patients for adjuvant cancer treatment? Protocol for a qualitative study
Published in
Implementation Science, October 2012
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-7-102
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robin Urquhart, Cynthia Kendell, Joan Sargeant, Gordon Buduhan, Paul Johnson, Daniel Rayson, Eva Grunfeld, Geoffrey A Porter

Abstract

Non-small cell lung cancer, breast cancer, and colorectal cancer are commonly diagnosed cancers in Canada. Patients diagnosed with early-stage non-small cell lung, breast, or colorectal cancer represent potentially curable populations. For these patients, surgery is the primary mode of treatment, with (neo)adjuvant therapies (e.g., chemotherapy, radiotherapy) recommended according to disease stage. Data from our research in Nova Scotia, as well as others', demonstrate that a substantial proportion of non-small cell lung cancer and colorectal cancer patients, for whom practice guidelines recommend (neo)adjuvant therapy, are not referred for an oncologist consultation. Conversely, surveillance data and clinical experience suggest that breast cancer patients have much higher referral rates. Since surgery is the primary treatment, the surgeon plays a major role in referring patients to oncologists. Thus, an improved understanding of how surgeons make decisions related to oncology services is important to developing strategies to optimize referral rates. Few studies have examined decision making for (neo)adjuvant therapy from the perspective of the cancer surgeon. This study will use qualitative methods to examine decision-making processes related to referral to oncology services for individuals diagnosed with potentially curable non-small cell lung, breast, or colorectal cancer.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 50 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 23%
Other 7 13%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 2 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 50%
Social Sciences 5 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Psychology 3 6%
Arts and Humanities 2 4%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 5 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 October 2012.
All research outputs
#7,940,888
of 13,182,257 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,195
of 1,369 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,929
of 146,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#71
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,182,257 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,369 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 146,158 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.