↓ Skip to main content

Testing of a Tool for Prostate Cancer Screening Discussions in Primary Care

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in oncology, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 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
Testing of a Tool for Prostate Cancer Screening Discussions in Primary Care
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, June 2018
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2018.00238
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anita D. Misra-Hebert, Grant Hom, Eric A. Klein, Janine M. Bauman, Niyati Gupta, Xinge Ji, Andrew J. Stephenson, J. Stephen Jones, Michael W. Kattan

Abstract

As prostate cancer (PCa) screening decisions often occur in outpatient primary care, a brief tool to help the PCa screening conversation in busy clinic settings is needed. A previously created 9-item tool to aid PCa screening discussions was tested in five diverse primary care clinics. Fifteen providers were recruited to use the tool for 4 weeks, and the tool was revised based upon feedback. The providers then used the tool with a convenience sample of patients during routine clinic visits. Pre- and post-visit surveys were administered to assess patients' knowledge of the option to be screened for PCa and of specific factors to consider in the decision. McNemar's and Stuart-Maxwell tests were used to compare pre-and post-survey responses. 14 of 15 providers completed feedback surveys and had positive responses to the tool. All 15 providers then tested the tool on 95 men aged 40-69 at the five clinics with 2-10 patients each. The proportion of patients who strongly agreed that they had the option to choose to screen for PCa increased from 57 to 72% (p = 0.018) from the pre- to post-survey, that there are factors in the personal or family history that may affect PCa risk from 34 to 47% (p = 0.012), and that their opinions about possible side effects of treatment for PCa should be considered in the decision from 47 to 61% (p = 0.009). A brief conversation tool for the PCa screening discussion was well received in busy primary-care settings and improved patients' knowledge about the screening decision.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 27%
Other 2 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 13%
Student > Master 2 13%
Lecturer 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 3 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 4 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 20%
Engineering 2 13%
Social Sciences 1 7%
Chemistry 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 3 20%
Attention Score in Context

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 28 June 2018.
All research outputs
#22,767,715
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#15,925
of 22,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#300,865
of 342,889 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#119
of 150 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 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 22,428 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. 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 342,889 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 150 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.