The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Assessing Psychological Toxicity and Patient-Reported Distress as the Sixth Vital Sign in Cancer Care and Clinical Trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The AMA Journal of Ethic, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.5.stas1-1705 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thomas W LeBlanc, Arif H Kamal |
| Abstract |
As the number of available cancer therapies continues to grow, there is increasing interest in their impact on cancer patients' lived experiences. Screening for distress is one way to measure psychological dimensions of cancer patients' experiences, and doing so is increasingly part of standard operations at major cancer centers across the US. To date, however, most clinical trials have not adequately captured patients' experiences as part of their outcome assessments, so clinicians lack data needed to guide their responses to psychological features of patients' illness experiences. As distress becomes the "sixth vital sign" in routine cancer care, we argue that clinical trials should assess patients' experiences in the same way that they robustly screen for adverse events and toxicities. New interventions are needed to address distress. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 13 | 42% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Mexico | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 16 | 52% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 15 | 48% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 8 | 26% |
| Scientists | 8 | 26% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 16 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 13% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 6% |
| Professor | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 25% |
| Unknown | 5 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 31% |
| Psychology | 3 | 19% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 7 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 17 April 2023.
All research outputs
#2,245,369
of 26,522,772 outputs
Outputs from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#669
of 2,817 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,438
of 329,686 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#25
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,522,772 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,817 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 329,686 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.