↓ Skip to main content

Planning National Radiotherapy Services

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in oncology, November 2014
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 (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 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
Planning National Radiotherapy Services
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, November 2014
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2014.00315
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eduardo Rosenblatt

Abstract

Countries, states, and island nations often need forward planning of their radiotherapy services driven by different motives. Countries without radiotherapy services sponsor patients to receive radiotherapy abroad. They often engage professionals for a feasibility study in order to establish whether it would be more cost-beneficial to establish a radiotherapy facility. Countries where radiotherapy services have developed without any central planning, find themselves in situations where many of the available centers are private and thus inaccessible for a majority of patients with limited resources. Government may decide to plan ahead when a significant exodus of cancer patients travel to another country for treatment, thus exposing the failure of the country to provide this medical service for its citizens. In developed countries, the trigger has been the existence of highly visible waiting lists for radiotherapy revealing a shortage of radiotherapy equipment. This paper suggests that there should be a systematic and comprehensive process of long-term planning of radiotherapy services at the national level, taking into account the regulatory infrastructure for radiation protection, planning of centers, equipment, staff, education programs, quality assurance, and sustainability aspects. Realistic budgetary and cost considerations must also be part of the project proposal or business plan.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Philippines 1 1%
Unknown 66 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 16%
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Other 14 21%
Unknown 15 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 12%
Physics and Astronomy 6 9%
Engineering 3 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 21 31%
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 15 December 2014.
All research outputs
#15,091,226
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#4,412
of 22,416 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,806
of 369,540 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#40
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 22,416 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 369,540 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 97 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 57% of its contemporaries.