↓ Skip to main content

“It wasn’t as bad as I thought it would be”: a qualitative study of early stage non-small cell lung cancer patients after treatment

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
15 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
“It wasn’t as bad as I thought it would be”: a qualitative study of early stage non-small cell lung cancer patients after treatment
Published in
BMC Research Notes, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13104-017-2956-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sara E. Golden, Charles R. Thomas, Mark E. Deffebach, Mithran S. Sukumar, Paul H. Schipper, Brandon H. Tieu, Andrew Y. Kee, Andrew C. Tsen, Christopher G. Slatore

Abstract

While surgical resection is recommended for most patients with early stage lung cancer, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is being increasingly utilized. Provider-patient communication regarding risks/benefits of each approach may be a modifiable factor leading to improved patient-centered outcomes. Our objective was to determine a framework and recommended strategies on how to best communicate with patients with early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the post-treatment setting. We qualitatively evaluated the experiences of 11 patients with early clinical stage NSCLC after treatment, with a focus on treatment experience, knowledge obtained, communication, and recommendations. We used conventional content analysis and a patient-centered communication theoretical model to guide our understanding. Five patients received surgery and six received SBRT. Both treatments were generally well-tolerated. Few participants reported communication deficits around receiving follow-up information, although several had remaining questions about their treatment outcome (mainly those who underwent SBRT). They described feeling anxious regarding their first surveillance CT scan and clinician visit. Overall, participants remained satisfied with care because of implicit trust in their clinicians rather than explicit communication. Communication gaps remain but may be addressed by a trusting relationship with the clinician. Patients recommend clinicians give thorough explanations and personalize when possible.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Other 2 13%
Student > Master 2 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 13%
Other 4 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 5 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 27%
Psychology 1 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Sports and Recreations 1 7%
Other 3 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 08 October 2018.
All research outputs
#10,388,634
of 13,595,754 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#1,949
of 3,100 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#261,083
of 392,772 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#229
of 408 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,595,754 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,100 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 392,772 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 408 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.