↓ Skip to main content

Impact of Pathologist Involvement in Sarcoma and Rare Tumor Patient Support Groups on Facebook: A Survey of 542 Patients and Family Members

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
61 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
7 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
Impact of Pathologist Involvement in Sarcoma and Rare Tumor Patient Support Groups on Facebook: A Survey of 542 Patients and Family Members
Published in
Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, September 2018
DOI 10.5858/arpa.2017-0408-oa
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jasmine Haller, Marjorie Parker David, Nathan E. Lee, Sara C. Shalin, Jerad M. Gardner

Abstract

- Patients with rare tumors have difficulty finding reliable information about their disease. Facebook patient support groups allow patients to educate one another. - To investigate how these patients perceive the value of pathologists, both in Facebook groups and real-world patient care. - Survey links were posted in 12 Facebook patient groups: 6 with an active pathologist member (angiosarcoma, epithelioid hemangioendothelioma, epithelioid sarcoma, dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans [×2], and desmoid fibromatosis), and 6 without "active" pathologist involvement (aggressive angiomyxoma, chondrosarcoma, Ewing sarcoma, leiomyosarcoma, liposarcoma, and osteosarcoma). - A total of 542 people responded (403 were patients): 264 from groups with a pathologist, and 278 from groups without active pathologist involvement. Of groups with an active pathologist, respondents agreed the pathologist's posts helped them better understand their disease (107 of 119; 90%) and relieved some of their disease-related anxiety (92 of 119; 77%). And for these groups 98% (117 of 119) of respondents agreed that having a pathologist in their group was a good thing; 83% (192 of 232) wanted more pathologists involved. More respondents from groups with an active pathologist (219 of 236; 93%) than without one (215 of 252; 85%) agreed: "pathologists are an important part of the patient care team for patients with cancer and other rare tumors" ( P = .008). - This study is the first to evaluate the impact of pathologist interaction with Facebook patient support groups and to assess perceptions about the specialty of pathology from a large group of patients with rare tumors. Pathologist involvement in Facebook patient groups appears to positively influence patient perception of the importance of pathologists. We hope these data will encourage more pathologists to participate in Facebook patient support groups.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 61 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 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 2 29%
Other 1 14%
Student > Bachelor 1 14%
Student > Master 1 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 14%
Other 1 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 57%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 43%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 43. 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 11 November 2018.
All research outputs
#324,778
of 12,194,836 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine
#89
of 1,318 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,587
of 326,603 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine
#5
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,194,836 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,318 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 326,603 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.