↓ Skip to main content

Primary care perspective and implementation of a multidisciplinary, institutional prostate cancer screening algorithm embedded in the electronic health record

Overview of attention for article published in Urologic Oncology, November 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
Primary care perspective and implementation of a multidisciplinary, institutional prostate cancer screening algorithm embedded in the electronic health record
Published in
Urologic Oncology, November 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.urolonc.2018.07.016
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alireza Aminsharifi, Ariel Schulman, John Anderson, Laura Fish, Kevin Oeffinger, Kevin Shah, Christina Sze, Kae J. Tay, Efrat Tsivian, Thomas J. Polascik

Abstract

In response to controversy regarding prostate cancer (CaP) screening recommendations, a consolidated Duke Cancer Institute (DCI) multidisciplinary algorithm for CaP screening was developed and implemented. We conducted an online survey within the year following its implementation to assess primary care provider (PCP) attitudes and adoption as well as to evaluate how this program affects screening rates. A web-based 18-item survey was programmed and was electronically mailed to practicing PCPs at clinics affiliated with the Duke Primary Care system. The survey assessed provider practices and attitudes regarding CaP screening, factors that influenced their general screening recommendations and the confidence related to communicating with patients about screening. The rate of PSA screening before and after implementation of the algorithm was reported across age and race categories. In sum, 94 of 106 respondents (88.6%) reported discussing the benefits and harms of screening and let their patients decide (52.8%) or recommended for (31.1%) or against (4.7%) screening. Three-fourths of respondents followed a specific panel recommendation such as the United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) (48.1%), DCI (20%), or the American Urological Association (AUA) (7.4%) guidelines. After integrating this algorithm into the electronic health record, the rate of prostate screening increased between 11% and 20.4% and 15.6% and 16.4% among different age and race categories, respectively. Overall, 79.2% of PCPs felt very confident regarding their ability to communicate the topic of CaP screening with patients. The DCI multidisciplinary CaP screening algorithm was well adopted among PCPs shortly after its implementation. The rate of screening increased among all age and race categories thereafter. The majority of PCPs involved in this survey felt confident regarding their CaP screening knowledge and most discuss this topic with patients in a shared decision-making model.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 29%
Researcher 7 20%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 9 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 23%
Psychology 4 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 11%
Social Sciences 4 11%
Sports and Recreations 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 10 29%

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 02 September 2018.
All research outputs
#10,267,874
of 13,457,774 outputs
Outputs from Urologic Oncology
#664
of 955 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#183,723
of 265,561 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Urologic Oncology
#24
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,457,774 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 955 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 265,561 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.