↓ Skip to main content

Is community treatment best? a randomised trial comparing delivery of cancer treatment in the hospital, home and GP surgery

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of Cancer, August 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 (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 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
Is community treatment best? a randomised trial comparing delivery of cancer treatment in the hospital, home and GP surgery
Published in
British Journal of Cancer, August 2013
DOI 10.1038/bjc.2013.414
Pubmed ID
Authors

P G Corrie, A M Moody, G Armstrong, S Nolasco, S-H Lao-Sirieix, L Bavister, A T Prevost, R Parker, R Sabes-Figuera, P McCrone, H Balsdon, K McKinnon, A Hounsell, B O'Sullivan, S Barclay

Abstract

Care closer to home is being explored as a means of improving patient experience as well as efficiency in terms of cost savings. Evidence that community cancer services improve care quality and/or generate cost savings is currently limited. A randomised study was undertaken to compare delivery of cancer treatment in the hospital with two different community settings.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Unknown 82 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 21%
Student > Master 16 19%
Student > Bachelor 10 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Other 8 10%
Other 14 17%
Unknown 10 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 15%
Psychology 9 11%
Social Sciences 6 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 11 13%

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 03 October 2019.
All research outputs
#2,634,644
of 16,442,890 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Cancer
#2,102
of 9,097 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,741
of 165,778 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Cancer
#31
of 147 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,442,890 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,097 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 165,778 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 147 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.