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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Explaining variation in cancer survival between 11 jurisdictions in the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership: a primary care vignette survey
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMJ Open, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007212 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
P. W. Rose, G. Rubin, R. Perera-Salazar, S. S. Almberg, A. Barisic, M. Dawes, E. Grunfeld, N. Hart, R. D. Neal, M. Pirotta, J. Sisler, G. Konrad, B. S. Toftegaard, H. Thulesius, P. Vedsted, J. Young, W. Hamilton, The ICBP Module Working Group, D. Dawes, M. Elwood, K. Forsdike, B. Hawryluk, A. K. Knudsen, M. Lagerlund, C. McAulay, J. Mou, M. Pirotta, J. Sisler, D. Weller |
| Abstract |
The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) is a collaboration between 6 countries and 12 jurisdictions with similar primary care-led health services. This study investigates primary care physician (PCP) behaviour and systems that may contribute to the timeliness of investigating for cancer and subsequently, international survival differences. A validated survey administered to PCPs via the internet set out in two parts: direct questions on primary care structure and practice relating to cancer diagnosis, and clinical vignettes, assessing management of scenarios relating to the diagnosis of lung, colorectal or ovarian cancer. 2795 PCPs in 11 jurisdictions: New South Wales and Victoria (Australia), British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario (Canada), England, Northern Ireland, Wales (UK), Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Analysis compared the cumulative proportion of PCPs in each jurisdiction opting to investigate or refer at each phase for each vignette with 1-year survival, and conditional 5-year survival rates for the relevant cancer and jurisdiction. Logistic regression was used to explore whether PCP characteristics or system differences in each jurisdiction affected the readiness to investigate. 4 of 5 vignettes showed a statistically significant correlation (p<0.05 or better) between readiness to investigate or refer to secondary care at the first phase of each vignette and cancer survival rates for that jurisdiction. No consistent associations were found between readiness to investigate and selected PCP demographics, practice or health system variables. We demonstrate a correlation between the readiness of PCPs to investigate symptoms indicative of cancer and cancer survival rates, one of the first possible explanations for the variation in cancer survival between ICBP countries. No specific health system features consistently explained these findings. Some jurisdictions may consider lowering thresholds for PCPs to investigate for cancer-either directly, or by specialist referral, to improve outcomes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 38 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 16 | 42% |
| Australia | 2 | 5% |
| Canada | 2 | 5% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 3% |
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 16 | 42% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 22 | 58% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 24% |
| Scientists | 7 | 18% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 123 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 25 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 12% |
| Other | 12 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 20 | 16% |
| Unknown | 34 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 49 | 40% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 5 | 4% |
| Psychology | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 8% |
| Unknown | 42 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 93. 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 01 January 2022.
All research outputs
#427,367
of 24,397,600 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#725
of 24,411 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,733
of 270,931 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#13
of 318 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,397,600 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 24,411 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 270,931 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 318 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.