↓ Skip to main content

Patients’ preferences for GP consultation for perceived cancer risk in primary care: a discrete choice experiment

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, May 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 (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
22 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
Patients’ preferences for GP consultation for perceived cancer risk in primary care: a discrete choice experiment
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, May 2017
DOI 10.3399/bjgp17x690905
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katriina L Whitaker, Alex Ghanouni, Yin Zhou, Georgios Lyratzopoulos, Stephen Morris

Abstract

Contacting a doctor for advice when experiencing a potential cancer symptom is an important step in early diagnosis, but barriers to consultation are commonly reported. Understanding barriers to consulting in primary care within the cancer context provides opportunities to improve earlier diagnosis of cancer AIM: To investigate patients' GP consultation preferences when presented with a potential cancer symptom, and to describe whether these preferences are mediated by variable levels of cancer risk. A UK-wide online survey of adults ≥50 years old, using quota sampling to reflect general population characteristics. A discrete choice experiment examined participants' preferences for primary care consultation for three cancer symptom scenarios: risk level not mentioned, risk designated as 'low', or risk designated as 'high'. Scenarios based on length of consultation, time to getting an appointment, convenience, choice of GP, and GP listening skills were presented in a self-completed online questionnaire. A total of 9616 observations were obtained from 601 participants. Participants expressed preferences for doctors with better listening skills, the ability to see a GP of their choice, and shorter waiting times. These findings were the same across risk conditions and demographic groups. Participants were willing to wait an extra 3.5 weeks for an appointment with a doctor with good/very good listening skills (versus very poor listening skills) and an extra week for an appointment with a GP of their choice (versus any GP). Patient decisions about help seeking seem to be particularly influenced by the anticipated listening skills of doctors. Improving doctors' communication skills may in the longer term encourage people to seek prompt medical help when they experience a cancer symptom.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 18%
Student > Bachelor 7 18%
Researcher 6 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 6 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 10 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 26%
Psychology 5 13%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 10 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 29 May 2018.
All research outputs
#1,248,036
of 14,175,429 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#650
of 3,081 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,024
of 265,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#26
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,175,429 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,081 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 265,118 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 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.