↓ Skip to main content

Breast Cancer Patient Perception of the Helpfulness of a Prompt Sheet Versus a General Information Sheet During Outpatient Consultation

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pain & Symptom Management, May 2003
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (57th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
76 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 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
Breast Cancer Patient Perception of the Helpfulness of a Prompt Sheet Versus a General Information Sheet During Outpatient Consultation
Published in
Journal of Pain & Symptom Management, May 2003
DOI 10.1016/s0885-3924(02)00686-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eduardo Bruera, Catherine Sweeney, Jie Willey, J.Lynn Palmer, Susanne Tolley, Marguerite Rosales, Carla Ripamonti

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the helpfulness of a prompt sheet versus a general information sheet for patient communication with physicians. Sixty women with breast cancer attending their first outpatient consultation with a breast medical oncologist were randomized to receive either a prompt sheet (PS) or a general information (GI) sheet regarding breast cancer. Analysis of the results found that helpfulness of the written material was rated higher in the PS group (8.5 +/- 2) than the GI group (6.2 +/- 3.6), P = 0.005. The mean score of helpfulness in communicating with physicians was 7.9 +/- 2.4 and 5.7 +/- 3.8, respectively, P = 0.01. There were no significant differences between the groups in the average total number of questions asked by the patients or average physician or patient speaking time. We conclude that a disease-specific prompt sheet provided before medical encounters may assist in communication between patients and physicians.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Japan 1 2%
Unknown 46 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 17%
Student > Master 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Other 3 6%
Other 12 25%
Unknown 6 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 38%
Psychology 8 17%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 11 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 01 January 2008.
All research outputs
#5,609,060
of 17,363,630 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain & Symptom Management
#1,465
of 3,185 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,342
of 267,940 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain & Symptom Management
#30
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,363,630 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,185 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 267,940 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.