↓ Skip to main content

Sharing bad news of a lung cancer diagnosis: understanding through communication privacy management theory

Overview of attention for article published in Psycho-Oncology, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 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
Sharing bad news of a lung cancer diagnosis: understanding through communication privacy management theory
Published in
Psycho-Oncology, November 2015
DOI 10.1002/pon.4024
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nothando Ngwenya, Morag Farquhar, Gail Ewing

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to understand the process of information disclosure and privacy as patients share their news of lung cancer with significant others. Twenty patients with lung cancer and 17 family members/friends accompanying them at diagnosis-giving completed either individual or dyad semi-structured interviews. Initial thematic analysis, then Petronio's Communication Privacy Management theory was used to inform interpretation. Patients described a sense of ownership of the news of their cancer and sought control of how, when and with whom it was shared. Family members expressed a need to follow the patients' rules in sharing this news, which limited their own support systems. Patients and family members had to live within the relational communication boundaries in order to maintain their trusting relationship and avoid potential disruptions. Patients as individuals are strongly interlinked with significant others, which impacts on their experience of disclosing private information. This shapes their psychological processes and outcomes impacting on their illness experience. This should be considered when developing interventions to support patients with sharing bad news. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 6 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 21%
Student > Master 4 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Researcher 2 8%
Other 5 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 5 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 17%
Psychology 4 17%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 8%
Other 4 17%

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 23 January 2016.
All research outputs
#6,390,991
of 12,189,224 outputs
Outputs from Psycho-Oncology
#823
of 1,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,686
of 314,582 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psycho-Oncology
#37
of 107 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,189,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,519 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 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 314,582 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 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 107 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 64% of its contemporaries.