↓ Skip to main content

Information service in head and neck cancer care—a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in Supportive Care in Cancer, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
Title
Information service in head and neck cancer care—a qualitative study
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer, July 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00520-017-3818-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Violet D’Souza, Maiziel Serrao, Erin Watson, Elizabeth Blouin, Anthony Zeitouni, Paul J. Allison

Abstract

We aimed to understand how information was delivered to head and neck (H&N) cancer patients and describe the perceptions of the H&N patients concerning information delivery. This qualitative investigation was a part of our larger quantitative study that was conducted with H&N cancer patients at two academic hospitals in Montreal. After obtaining the ethical approval, a purposeful sample of participants was recruited from the main study until the content of the information gathered reached saturation. Data were collected by observing the information delivery and interviewing the study participants and Nurse Pivots. All observations and interviews were audiotaped. Data were transcribed verbatim; transcripts were developed, audited, and subjected to a thematic analysis. Eleven H&N patients participated in the study. We found that the doctors were the main source of information at both hospitals; one hospital delivered information systematically to every patient using a multimedia-based information disseminating tool while the second hospital delivered information verbally in an ad hoc manner. Those who received information using the multimedia tool understood what was said to them and were better prepared for the next step, while those who received information verbally did not retain much, were confused, and expressed dissatisfaction. Although the doctors were the main source of information, patients experience difficulties in understanding what was said to them. Comprehensive information together with audiovisuals, when provided to H&N cancer patients based on their needs, seems to improve their understanding of their cancer and prepare them for their treatment.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 38%
Researcher 3 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 14%
Student > Master 2 10%
Unspecified 2 10%
Other 3 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 43%
Unspecified 4 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 14%
Psychology 3 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Other 1 5%

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 06 April 2018.
All research outputs
#11,356,304
of 12,768,104 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#2,187
of 2,477 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,895
of 273,897 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#44
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,768,104 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,477 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 273,897 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.