↓ Skip to main content

Worse and worse off: the impact of lymphedema on work and career after breast cancer

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, May 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 (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
66 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
Title
Worse and worse off: the impact of lymphedema on work and career after breast cancer
Published in
SpringerPlus, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40064-016-2300-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

John Boyages, Senia Kalfa, Ying Xu, Louise Koelmeyer, Helen Mackie, Hector Viveros, Lucy Taksa, Paul Gollan

Abstract

Our study examines the impact of breast cancer-related lymphedema on women's work and career. Our research addresses a significant knowledge gap regarding the additional impact of lymphedema on breast cancer survivors. An online national survey was conducted with 361 women who either had breast cancer without lymphedema (Group 1, n = 209) or breast cancer with lymphedema (Group 2, n = 152). Participant recruitment was supported by the Breast Cancer Network Australia and the Australasian Lymphology Association. Both breast cancer and lymphedema had a significant negative influence on women's work and career. Respondents reported changes in employment resulting from stress and/or physical impairment, which affected attendance and work performance. The perceived negative impact of breast cancer on respondents' work and career was noticeably greater in Group 2 (63 %) than Group 1 (51 %) (p = 0.03). Of the participants who were in paid employment at some time (either at diagnosis of lymphedema or at the time of the survey (n = 103), 43 (42 %) indicated that lymphedema impacted their work performance. The impact of lymphedema on work was incremental with increased severity of lymphedema (range 22-75 %). The annual number of days off work for subclinical/mild lymphedema participants was 1.4 versus 8.1 days for moderate or severe participants (p = 0.003). This study identifies an additional detrimental effect of lymphedema on women's work and career over and above the initial impact of breast cancer and provides empirical evidence for future prospective studies and policy improvement.

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 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 2%
Unknown 63 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 20%
Student > Master 11 17%
Researcher 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Other 5 8%
Other 13 20%
Unknown 9 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 34%
Psychology 7 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 11%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 14 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 29 June 2016.
All research outputs
#13,763,047
of 23,337,345 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#706
of 1,856 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,563
of 328,269 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#79
of 196 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,337,345 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,856 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 328,269 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 196 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 59% of its contemporaries.