↓ Skip to main content

Associations between diagnostic pathways and care experience in colorectal cancer: evidence from patient-reported data

Overview of attention for article published in Frontline gastroenterology, April 2018
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 (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 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
Associations between diagnostic pathways and care experience in colorectal cancer: evidence from patient-reported data
Published in
Frontline gastroenterology, April 2018
DOI 10.1136/flgastro-2017-100926
Pubmed ID
Authors

Theodosia Salika, Gary A Abel, Silvia C Mendonca, Christian von Wagner, Cristina Renzi, Annie Herbert, Sean McPhail, Georgios Lyratzopoulos

Abstract

To examine how different pathways to diagnosis of colorectal cancer may be associated with the experience of subsequent care. Patient survey linked to information on diagnostic route.English patients with colorectal cancer (analysis sample n=6837) who responded to a patient survey soon after their hospital treatment. Odds Ratios and adjusted proportions of negative evaluation of key aspects of care for colorectal cancer, including the experience of shared decision-making about treatment, specialist nursing and care coordination, by diagnostic route (ie, screening detection, emergency presentation, urgent and elective general practitioner referral). For 14 of 18 questions, there was evidence (p≤0.02) for variation in patient experience by diagnostic route, with 6-31 percentage point differences between routes in adjusted proportions of negative experience. Emergency presenters were more likely to report a negative experience for most questions, including those about adequacy of information about their diagnosis and sufficient explanation before operations. Screen-detected patients were least likely to report negative experiences except for support from primary care. Patients diagnosed through elective primary care referrals were most likely to report worse experience for questions for which overall variation by route was generally small. Screening-detected patients tend to report the best and emergency presenters the worst experience of subsequent care. Improvement efforts can target care integration for screening-detected patients and provision of information about the diagnosis and treatment of emergency presenters.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 33%
Unspecified 3 25%
Researcher 2 17%
Student > Postgraduate 1 8%
Student > Master 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 5 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 17%
Social Sciences 1 8%
Mathematics 1 8%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 02 August 2018.
All research outputs
#2,273,674
of 13,322,622 outputs
Outputs from Frontline gastroenterology
#77
of 314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,374
of 269,394 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontline gastroenterology
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,322,622 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 314 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. 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 269,394 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them