↓ Skip to main content

Survivorship care and support following treatment for breast cancer: a multi-ethnic comparative qualitative study of women’s experiences

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, 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 (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 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
Survivorship care and support following treatment for breast cancer: a multi-ethnic comparative qualitative study of women’s experiences
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1625-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charlotte Tompkins, Karen Scanlon, Emma Scott, Emma Ream, Seeromanie Harding, Jo Armes

Abstract

As the number of breast cancer survivors continues to rise, Western populations become more ethnically and socially diverse and healthcare resources become ever-more stretched, follow-up that focuses on monitoring for recurrence is no longer viable. New models of survivorship care need to ensure they support self-management and are culturally appropriate across diverse populations. This study explored experiences and expectations of a multi-ethnic sample of women with breast cancer regarding post-treatment care, in order to understand potential barriers to receiving care and inform new models of survivorship care. A phenomenological qualitative research design was employed. In-depth interviews were conducted with women from diverse socio-demographic backgrounds in England, who completed treatment for breast cancer in the 12 months prior to the study. Data were analysed using Framework Analysis. Sixty-six women participated and reported expectations and needs were unmet at follow-up. Whilst there were more commonalities in experiences, discernible differences, particularly by ethnicity and age, were identified relating to three key themes: emotional responses on transition to follow-up; challenges communicating with healthcare professionals at follow-up; and challenges finding and accessing information and support services to address unmet needs. There are cultural differences in the way healthcare professionals and women communicate, not necessarily differences in their post-treatment needs. We do not know if new models of care meet survivors' needs, or if they are appropriate for everyone. Further testing and potential cultural and linguistic adaptation of models of care is necessary to ensure their appropriateness and acceptability to survivors from different backgrounds. New ways of providing survivorship care mean survivors will need to be better prepared for the post-treatment period and the role they will have to play in managing their symptoms and care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 104 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 12%
Student > Master 10 10%
Researcher 7 7%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 19 18%
Unknown 42 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 5%
Unspecified 5 5%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Other 12 11%
Unknown 45 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 07 December 2016.
All research outputs
#5,055,377
of 25,205,864 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,378
of 8,559 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,440
of 351,707 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#69
of 246 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,205,864 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,559 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 351,707 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 246 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 72% of its contemporaries.