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 |
Mobilizing social support networks to improve cancer screening: the COACH randomized controlled trial study design
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Cancer, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12885-015-1920-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Olive Mbah, Jean G. Ford, Miaozhen Qiu, Jennifer Wenzel, Lee Bone, Janice Bowie, Ahmed Elmi, Jimmie L. Slade, Michele Towson, Adrian S. Dobs |
| Abstract |
Disadvantaged populations face many barriers to cancer care, including limited support in navigating through the complexities of the healthcare system. Family members play an integral role in caring for patients and provide valuable care coordination; however, the effect of family navigators on adherence to cancer screening has not previously been evaluated. Training and evaluating trusted family members and other support persons may improve cancer outcomes for vulnerable patients. Guided by principles of community based participatory research (CBPR), "Evaluating Coaches of Older Adults for Cancer Care and Healthy Behaviors (COACH)" is a community-based randomized controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of a trained participant-designated coach (support person or care giver) in navigating cancer-screening for older African American adults, 50-74 years old. Participants are randomly assigned as dyads (participant + coach pair) to receiving either printed educational materials only (PEM-control group) or educational materials plus coach training (COACH-intervention group). We defined a coach as family member, friend, or other lay support person designated by the older adult. The coach training is designed as a one-time, 35- to 40-minute training consisting of: 1) a didactic session that covers the role of the coach, basic facts about colorectal, breast and cervical cancers (including risk factors, signs and symptoms and screening modalities), engaging the healthcare provider in cancer screening, insurance coverage for screening, and related healthcare issues, 2) three video skits addressing misconceptions about and planning for cancer screening, and 3) an interactive role-play session with the trainer to reinforce and practice strategies for encouraging the participant to get screened. The primary study outcome is the difference in the proportion of participants completing at least one of the recommended screenings (for breast, cervix or colorectal cancer) between the control and intervention groups. Building on trusted patient contacts to encourage cancer screening, COACH is a highly sustainable intervention in a high-risk population. It has the potential to minimize the effect of mistrust of the medical establishment on screening behaviors by mobilizing participants' existing support networks. If effective, the intervention could have a high impact on health care disparities research across multiple diseases. ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT01613430 ). Registered June 5, 2012. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 181 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 180 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 30 | 17% |
| Researcher | 19 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 6% |
| Other | 30 | 17% |
| Unknown | 56 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 39 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 17% |
| Psychology | 12 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 25 | 14% |
| Unknown | 60 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 20 November 2015.
All research outputs
#13,216,846
of 22,833,393 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#2,838
of 8,306 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,989
of 252,470 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#86
of 272 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,833,393 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,306 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 252,470 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 272 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.