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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Predictors of quality of life in head and neck cancer survivors up to 5 years after end of treatment: a cross-sectional survey
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Supportive Care in Cancer, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00520-015-3045-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mary Wells, Samantha Swartzman, Heidi Lang, Margaret Cunningham, Lesley Taylor, Jane Thomson, Julie Philp, Colin McCowan |
| Abstract |
This study aimed to assess quality of life (QoL) in head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors and determine factors predictive of poor QoL in the first 5 years after the end of treatment. A cross-sectional survey, including the Quality of Life in Adult Cancer Survivors (QLACS) measure, was sent to HNC survivors in three Scottish health regions, with responses linked to routinely collected clinical data. Independent sample t tests, ANOVAs, Pearson correlations and multiple hierarchical regressions were used to explore associations between and to determine the contribution made by demographic, lifestyle and clinical factors to predicting 'generic' and 'cancer-specific' quality of life. Two hundred eighty patients (65 %) returned questionnaires. After adjustment, multivariate analysis showed that younger age, lower socio-economic status, unemployment and self-reported comorbidity independently contributed to poorer generic and cancer-specific quality of life. In addition to these factors, having had a feeding tube or a diagnosis of oral cavity cancer were independently predictive of poorer cancer-specific quality of life. Socio-economic factors and comorbidity are important predictors of QoL in HNC survivors. These factors and the detrimental long-term effects of feeding tubes need further attention in research and practice. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 83 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 12% |
| Other | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 19 | 23% |
| Unknown | 22 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 39% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 14% |
| Psychology | 2 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Unknown | 28 | 33% |
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 15 December 2015.
All research outputs
#4,181,246
of 22,835,198 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#960
of 4,584 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,367
of 389,181 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#24
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,835,198 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,584 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 389,181 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 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.