↓ 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, March 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 (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
20 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
129 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
4 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, March 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 4 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 4 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 50%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 25%
Student > Postgraduate 1 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 1 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 25%
Psychology 1 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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
#796,986
of 11,403,395 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,886
of 9,089 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,037
of 137,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#38
of 130 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,403,395 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,089 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 137,601 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 130 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.