↓ Skip to main content

Possible missed opportunities for diagnosing colorectal cancer in Dutch primary care: a multimethods approach

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, December 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 (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
Title
Possible missed opportunities for diagnosing colorectal cancer in Dutch primary care: a multimethods approach
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, December 2017
DOI 10.3399/bjgp17x693905
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daan Brandenbarg, Feikje Groenhof, Ilse M Siewers, Anna van der Voort, Fiona M Walter, Annette J Berendsen

Abstract

Early detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) is important to achieve better survival. Discriminating symptoms suggestive of CRC from benign conditions is a challenge for GPs because most known 'alarm symptoms' have low predictive values. To further understand the diagnostic process of CRC in general practice in terms of healthcare use and by analysing factors related to diagnostic intervals. A multimethod approach comprising a historical, prospective registry study and qualitative content analysis. Healthcare use in the year before referral for colonoscopy was compared between patients diagnosed with CRC and an age-, sex,- and GP-matched control population. Qualitative content analysis was performed on free texts in electronic patient records from a purposive sample of patients with CRC. Patients with CRC (n = 287) had 41% (25-59%) more face-to-face contacts and 21% (7-37%) more medication prescriptions than controls (n = 828). Forty-six per cent of patients with CRC had two or more contacts for digestive reasons, compared with 12.2% of controls, more often for symptoms than diagnoses. From qualitative analysis two themes emerged: 'possible missed diagnostic opportunities' and 'improvements in diagnostic process unlikely'. Possible missed diagnostic opportunities were related to patients waiting before presenting symptoms, doctors attributing symptoms to comorbid conditions or medication use, or doctors sticking to an initial diagnosis. Fewer missed diagnostic opportunities might occur if GPs are aware of pitfalls in diagnosing CRC: the assumption that symptoms are caused by comorbid conditions or medication, or relating complaints to pre-existing medical conditions. GPs also need to be aware that repeated digestive complaints warrant rethinking an earlier diagnosis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 3 23%
Researcher 3 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 23%
Student > Master 2 15%
Other 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 4 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 31%
Social Sciences 1 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 17 January 2018.
All research outputs
#1,117,287
of 12,379,409 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#536
of 2,568 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,364
of 357,890 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#23
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,379,409 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,568 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 357,890 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 87 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 73% of its contemporaries.