↓ Skip to main content

Strategies for Community Education Prior to Clinical Trial Recruitment for a Cervical Cancer Screening Intervention in Uganda

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in oncology, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 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
Strategies for Community Education Prior to Clinical Trial Recruitment for a Cervical Cancer Screening Intervention in Uganda
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, April 2016
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2016.00090
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sheona M. Mitchell, Heather N. Pedersen, Musa Sekikubo, Christine Biryabarema, Josaphat J. K. Byamugisha, David Mwesigwa, Malcolm Steinberg, Deborah M. Money, Gina S. Ogilvie

Abstract

Community engagement and education can improve acceptability and participation in clinical trials conducted in Kisenyi, Uganda. In preparation for a randomized controlled trial exploring different methods for cervical cancer screening, we explored optimal engagement strategies from the perspective of community members and health professionals. We conducted key informant interviews followed by serial community forums with purposeful sampling and compared the perspectives of women in Kisenyi (N = 26) to health-care workers (HCW) at the local and tertiary care center levels (N = 61) in a participatory, iterative process. Key themes identified included format, content, language, message delivery, and target population. Women in Kisenyi see demonstration as a key part of an educational intervention and not solely a didactic session, whereas health professionals emphasized the biomedical content and natural history of cervical cancer. Using local language and lay leaders with locally accessible terminology was more of a priority for women in Kisenyi than clinicians. Simple language with a clear message was essential for both groups. Localization of language and reciprocal communication using demonstration between community members and HCW was a key theme. Although perceptions of the format are similar between women and HCW, the content, language, and messaging that should be incorporated in a health education strategy differ markedly. The call for lay leaders to participate in health promotion is a clear step toward transforming this cervical cancer screening project to be a fully participatory process. This is important in scaling up cervical cancer screening programs in Kisenyi and will be central in developing health education interventions for this purpose.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 17 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 18%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 4%
Psychology 3 4%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 20 29%
Attention Score in Context

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 26 April 2016.
All research outputs
#15,053,608
of 25,593,129 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#4,196
of 22,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,908
of 316,284 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#29
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,593,129 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,728 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 316,284 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 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 63% of its contemporaries.