↓ Skip to main content

Symptom appraisal and healthcare-seeking for symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer: a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, January 2015
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 (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 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
Symptom appraisal and healthcare-seeking for symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer: a qualitative study
Published in
BMJ Open, January 2015
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008448
Pubmed ID
Authors

N Hall, L Birt, J Banks, J Emery, K Mills, M Johnson, G P Rubin, W Hamilton, F M Walter, Hall, N, Birt, L, Banks, J, Emery, J, Mills, K, Johnson, M, Rubin, G P, Hamilton, W, Walter, F M

Abstract

Timely diagnosis of colorectal cancer is important to improve survival. This study explored symptom appraisal and help-seeking among patients referred to specialist services with symptoms of colorectal cancer. Qualitative in-depth interview study. Participants were recruited on referral to gastroenterology clinics (North East and East of England); interviews were conducted soon after referral. We purposively sampled participants to ensure a range of accounts in terms of age, sex, diagnosis and geographical location. Data collection and analysis were underpinned by the Model of Pathways to Treatment. Framework analysis was used to explore the data within and across cases, focusing on patient beliefs and experiences, disease factors and healthcare influences. 40 participants were interviewed (aged 43-87 years, 17 women, 18 diagnosed with colorectal cancer). Patients diagnosed with and without colorectal cancer had similar symptom pathways. We found a range of interacting and often competing biopsychosocial, contextual and cultural influences on the way in which people recognised, interpreted and acted on their symptoms. People attempted to 'maintain normality' through finding benign explanations for their symptoms. Bodily changes were appraised within the context of usual bowel patterns, comorbidities and life events, and decisions to seek help were made in relation to expectations about the course of symptoms. The 'private nature' of colorectal cancer symptoms could affect both their identification and discussions with others including healthcare professionals. Within the context of the National Health Service, people needed to legitimise appropriate use of healthcare services and avoid being thought of as wasting doctors' time. Findings provide guidance for awareness campaigns on reducing stigma around appraising and discussing bowel movements, and the importance of intermittent and non-specific symptoms. Altering perceptions about the appropriate use of health services could have a beneficial effect on time to presentation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 41 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 33%
Researcher 7 17%
Unspecified 5 12%
Other 5 12%
Student > Master 3 7%
Other 8 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 29%
Unspecified 10 24%
Psychology 8 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 19%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Other 2 5%

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 16 October 2015.
All research outputs
#879,594
of 6,258,277 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#1,410
of 4,361 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,460
of 194,307 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#112
of 331 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,258,277 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,361 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 194,307 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 331 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 66% of its contemporaries.