↓ Skip to main content

Cancer related fatigue: implementing guidelines for optimal management

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
114 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
Cancer related fatigue: implementing guidelines for optimal management
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2415-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elizabeth J. M. Pearson, Meg E. Morris, Carol E. McKinstry

Abstract

Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a key concern for people living with cancer and can impair physical functioning and activities of daily living. Evidence-based guidelines for CRF are available, yet inconsistently implemented globally. This study aimed to identify barriers and enablers to applying a cancer fatigue guideline and to derive implementation strategies. A mixed-method study explored the feasibility of implementing the CRF guideline developed by the Canadian Association for Psychosocial Oncology (CAPO). Health professionals, managers and consumers from different practice settings participated in a modified Delphi study with two survey rounds. A reference group informed the design of the study including the surveys. The first round focused on guideline characteristics, compatibility with current practice and experience, and behaviour change. The second survey built upon and triangulated the first round. Forty-five health practitioners and managers, and 68 cancer survivors completed the surveys. More than 75% of participants endorsed the CAPO cancer related fatigue guidelines. Some respondents perceived a lack of resources for accessible and expert fatigue management services. Further barriers to guideline implementation included complexity, limited practical details for some elements, and lack of clinical tools such as assessment tools or patient education materials. Recommendations to enhance guideline applicability centred around four main themes: (1) balancing the level of detail in the CAPO guideline with ease of use, (2) defining roles of different professional disciplines in CRF management, (3) how best to integrate CRF management into policy and practice, (4) how best to ensure a consumer-focused approach to CRF management. Translating current knowledge on optimal management of CRF into clinical practice can be enhanced by the adoption of valid guidelines. This study indicates that it is feasible to adopt the CAPO guidelines. Clinical application may be further enhanced with guideline adaptation, professional education and integration with existing practices.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 114 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 11%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 9%
Student > Postgraduate 8 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 7%
Other 22 19%
Unknown 43 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 25 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 14%
Psychology 8 7%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 47 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 12 January 2022.
All research outputs
#4,601,905
of 25,205,864 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,132
of 8,559 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,824
of 320,607 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#60
of 166 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,205,864 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,559 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 320,607 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 166 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 64% of its contemporaries.