↓ Skip to main content

Benefits and barriers to participation in colorectal cancer screening: a protocol for a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative studies

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, February 2014
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)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 3%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 67 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 17%
Researcher 10 14%
Student > Master 10 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Other 23 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 35%
Social Sciences 10 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 13%
Unspecified 8 11%
Psychology 4 6%
Other 15 21%

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
#501,696
of 3,629,728 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#631
of 2,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,369
of 92,805 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#86
of 172 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 3,629,728 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,123 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 92,805 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 172 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 50% of its contemporaries.