↓ Skip to main content

Incorporating cancer risk information into general practice: a qualitative study using focus groups with health professionals

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
Incorporating cancer risk information into general practice: a qualitative study using focus groups with health professionals
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, February 2017
DOI 10.3399/bjgp17x689401
Pubmed ID
Authors

Juliet A Usher-Smith, Barbora Silarova, Alison Ward, Jane Youell, Kenneth R Muir, Jackie Campbell, Joanne Warcaba

Abstract

It is estimated that approximately 40% of all cases of cancer are attributable to lifestyle factors. Providing people with personalised information about their future risk of cancer may help promote behaviour change. To explore the views of health professionals on incorporating personalised cancer risk information, based on lifestyle factors, into general practice. Qualitative study using data from six focus groups with a total of 24 general practice health professionals from the NHS Nene Clinical Commissioning Group in England. The focus groups were guided by a schedule covering current provision of lifestyle advice relating to cancer and views on incorporating personalised cancer risk information. Data were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, and then analysed using thematic analysis. Providing lifestyle advice was viewed as a core activity within general practice but the influence of lifestyle on cancer risk was rarely discussed. The word 'cancer' was seen as a potentially powerful motivator for lifestyle change but the fact that it could generate health anxiety was also recognised. Most focus group participants felt that a numerical risk estimate was more likely to influence behaviour than generic advice. All felt that general practice should provide this information, but there was a clear need for additional resources for it to be offered widely. Study participants were in support of providing personalised cancer risk information in general practice. The findings highlight a number of potential benefits and challenges that will inform the future development of interventions in general practice to promote behaviour change for cancer prevention.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 7 26%
Researcher 6 22%
Student > Bachelor 4 15%
Student > Master 4 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Other 4 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 10 37%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 22%
Psychology 3 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Other 5 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 17 October 2018.
All research outputs
#1,941,023
of 13,640,418 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#847
of 2,962 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,936
of 350,426 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#26
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,640,418 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,962 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 350,426 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 87 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 70% of its contemporaries.