↓ Skip to main content

Using Community Engagement to Inform and Implement a Community-Randomized Controlled Trial in the Anishinaabek Cervical Cancer Screening Study

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in oncology, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 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
Using Community Engagement to Inform and Implement a Community-Randomized Controlled Trial in the Anishinaabek Cervical Cancer Screening Study
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, January 2014
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2014.00027
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brianne Wood, Ann N. Burchell, Nicholas Escott, Julian Little, Marion Maar, Gina Ogilvie, Alberto Severini, Lisa Bishop, Kyla Morrisseau, Ingeborg Zehbe

Abstract

Social, political, and economic factors are directly and indirectly associated with the quality and distribution of health resources across Canada. First Nations (FN) women in particular, endure a disproportionate burden of ill health in contrast to the mainstream population. The complex relationship of health, social, and historical determinants are inherent to increased cervical cancer in FN women. This can be traced back to the colonial oppression suffered by Canadian FN and the social inequalities they have since faced. Screening - the Papinacolaou (Pap) test - and early immunization have rendered cervical cancer almost entirely preventable but despite these options, FN women endure notably higher rates of diagnosis and mortality due to cervical cancer. The Anishinaabek Cervical Cancer Screening Study (ACCSS) is a participatory action research project investigating the factors underlying the cervical cancer burden in FN women. ACCSS is a collaboration with 11 FN communities in Northwest Ontario, Canada, and a multidisciplinary research team from across Canada with expertise in cancer biology, epidemiology, medical anthropology, public health, virology, women's health, and pathology. Interviews with healthcare providers and community members revealed that prior to any formal data collection education must be offered. Consequently, an educational component was integrated into the existing quantitative design of the study: a two-armed, community-randomized trial that compares the uptake of two different cervical screening modalities. In ACCSS, the Research Team integrates community engagement and the flexible nature of participatory research with the scientific rigor of a randomized controlled trial. ACCSS findings will inform culturally appropriate screening strategies, aiming to reduce the disproportionate burden of cervical disease in concert with priorities of the partner FN communities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 88 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 19%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Other 18 20%
Unknown 24 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 27%
Social Sciences 11 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 10%
Unspecified 4 4%
Psychology 2 2%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 31 34%
Attention Score in Context

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 10 March 2014.
All research outputs
#20,105,174
of 25,576,801 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#9,420
of 22,703 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#235,064
of 320,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#30
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,801 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,703 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 320,210 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.