↓ Skip to main content

Cancer beliefs in ethnic minority populations: a review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Cancer Care, August 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 (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
Cancer beliefs in ethnic minority populations: a review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies
Published in
European Journal of Cancer Care, August 2016
DOI 10.1111/ecc.12556
Pubmed ID
Authors

S. Licqurish, L. Phillipson, P. Chiang, J. Walker, F. Walter, J. Emery

Abstract

People from ethnic minorities often experience poorer cancer outcomes, possibly due to later presentation to healthcare and later diagnosis. We aimed to identify common cancer beliefs in minority populations in developed countries, which can affect symptom appraisal and help seeking for symptomatic cancer. Our systematic review found 15 relevant qualitative studies, located in the United Kingdom (six), United States (five), Australia (two) and Canada (two) of African, African-American, Asian, Arabic, Hispanic and Latino minority groups. We conducted a meta-synthesis that found specific emotional reactions to cancer, knowledge and beliefs and interactions with healthcare services as contributing factors in help seeking for a cancer diagnosis. These findings may be useful to inform the development of interventions to facilitate cancer diagnosis in minority populations.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 23%
Researcher 9 23%
Unspecified 7 18%
Student > Master 6 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Other 5 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 31%
Unspecified 10 26%
Psychology 10 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Other 1 3%

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 24 June 2017.
All research outputs
#1,883,736
of 12,348,212 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Cancer Care
#85
of 719 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,484
of 266,376 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Cancer Care
#6
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,348,212 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 719 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 266,376 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.