| Title |
Decisions and involvement of cancer patient survivors: a moral imperative
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Healthcare Leadership, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/jhl.s115434 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gabriella Pravettoni, Ilaria Cutica, Simona Righetti, Ketti Mazzocco |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to review the experiences of direct involvement in patient survivorship for treatment and research. This is a narrative-focused review of the following two recent experiences of patient involvement: the Chordoma Foundation and the Triple Negative Breast Cancer Foundation. These two examples represent concrete experiences that patients have built to favor a real involvement in the care and treatment of tumors. These experiences are profoundly modifying how cancer research is conducted and draw attention to the psychosocial dimensions of health care. These examples represent the new scenario in which modern medicine faces completely new challenges, copes with new needs, and cooperates with new health care professionals. Involving patients in a new perspective raises practical and ethical challenges for organizations to work together, for health providers to be professionally skilled and for the government to promote safeguarding policies. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 33 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 21% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Professor | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Unknown | 13 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 7 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 12% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 6% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 16 | 48% |
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 08 December 2016.
All research outputs
#20,110,957
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Healthcare Leadership
#104
of 129 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#299,126
of 417,676 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Healthcare Leadership
#6
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 129 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 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 417,676 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.