↓ Skip to main content

Communication skills training for healthcare professionals working with people who have cancer.

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2013
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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
20 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
73 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Communication skills training for healthcare professionals working with people who have cancer.
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003751.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Moore PM, Rivera Mercado S, Grez Artigues M, Lawrie TA, Moore, Philippa M, Rivera Mercado, Solange, Grez Artigues, Mónica, Lawrie, Theresa A

Abstract

This is an updated version of a review that was originally published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in 2004, Issue 2. People with cancer, their families and carers have a high prevalence of psychological stress which may be minimised by effective communication and support from their attending healthcare professionals (HCPs). Research suggests communication skills do not reliably improve with experience, therefore, considerable effort is dedicated to courses that may improve communication skills for HCPs involved in cancer care. A variety of communication skills training (CST) courses have been proposed and are in practice. We conducted this review to determine whether CST works and which types of CST, if any, are the most effective.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 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 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 3%
Unknown 71 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Researcher 8 11%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Other 14 19%
Unknown 21 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 16 22%
Psychology 16 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 12%
Unspecified 5 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 21 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 23 June 2017.
All research outputs
#623,274
of 8,800,428 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,462
of 8,775 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,902
of 129,599 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#35
of 129 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,800,428 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,775 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.1. 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 129,599 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 129 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.