| Title |
Benefits and barriers to participation in colorectal cancer screening: a protocol for a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative studies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMJ Open, February 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004508 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gladys N Honein-AbouHaidar, Monika Kastner, Vincent Vuong, Laure Perrier, Linda Rabeneck, Jill Tinmouth, Sharon Straus, Nancy N Baxter |
| Abstract |
Colorectal cancer (CRC) poses a serious health problem worldwide. While screening is effective in reducing CRC mortality, participation in screening tests is generally suboptimal and social inequities in participation are frequently reported. The goal of this review is to synthesise factors that influence an individual's decision to participate in CRC screening, and to explore how those factors vary by sex, ethnicity and socioeconomic status. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 99 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 13% |
| Researcher | 12 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 8% |
| Other | 18 | 17% |
| Unknown | 26 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 10% |
| Engineering | 4 | 4% |
| Psychology | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 19 | 18% |
| Unknown | 26 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 04 April 2014.
All research outputs
#5,447,195
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#9,940
of 25,589 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,697
of 235,870 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#115
of 264 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,589 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 235,870 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 264 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 55% of its contemporaries.