↓ Skip to main content

Describing perspectives of health care professionals on active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

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
Describing perspectives of health care professionals on active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-3273-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kittie Pang, Margaret Fitch, Veronique Ouellet, Simone Chevalier, Darrel E. Drachenberg, Antonio Finelli, Jean-Baptiste Lattouf, Alan So, Simon Sutcliffe, Simon Tanguay, Fred Saad, Anne-Marie Mes-Masson

Abstract

Over the last decade, active surveillance has proven to be a safe approach for patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Although active surveillance presents several advantages for both patients and the health care system, all eligible patients do not adopt this approach. Our goal was to evaluate the factors that influence physicians to recommend active surveillance and the barriers that impact adherence to this approach. Focus groups (n = 5) were held with physicians who provided care for men with low-risk prostate cancer and had engaged in conversations with men and their families about active surveillance. The experience of health care professionals (HCPs) was captured to understand their decisions in proposing active surveillance and to reveal the barriers and facilitators that affect the adherence to this approach. A content analysis was performed on the verbatim transcripts from the sessions. Although physicians agreed that active surveillance is a suitable approach for low-risk prostate cancer patients, they were concerned about the rapidly evolving and non-standardized guidelines for patient follow-up. They pointed out the need for additional tools to appropriately identify proper patients for whom active surveillance is the best option. Urologists and radiation-oncologists were keen to collaborate with each other, but the role of general practitioner remained controversial once patients were referred to a specialist. Integration of more reliable tools and/or markers in addition to more specific guidelines for patient follow-up would increase the confidence of both patients and physicians in the choice of active surveillance.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 %
Professor 2 13%
Unspecified 2 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 13%
Student > Master 2 13%
Student > Postgraduate 2 13%
Other 5 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 47%
Psychology 2 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 13%
Sports and Recreations 1 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Other 2 13%

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 11 June 2018.
All research outputs
#10,411,339
of 13,055,200 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,629
of 4,341 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#203,364
of 270,374 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,055,200 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,341 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 270,374 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 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