↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

The multidisciplinary team meeting in the UK from the patients’ perspective: comments and observations from cholangiocarcinoma patients and their families

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of General Medicine, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
Title
The multidisciplinary team meeting in the UK from the patients’ perspective: comments and observations from cholangiocarcinoma patients and their families
Published in
International Journal of General Medicine, September 2017
DOI 10.2147/ijgm.s145029
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helen Morement, Rachel Harrison, Simon D Taylor-Robinson

Abstract

The multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting has become the hallmark for cancer care in the UK. While standardizing care through adherence to guidelines, the MDT process can make the decision-making process somewhat remote from the patient perspective. The Cholangiocarcinoma Charity (AMMF) is the UK's only cholangiocarcinoma charity and is at the forefront of patient empowerment for those with this condition and for their families. It provides much needed support not only via personal contact but also through its website and on the social media platforms, Facebook and Twitter. AMMF conducted a survey of patient attitudes to and experience of the MDT process through a simple questionnaire posted on Facebook in 2014. We report the results of the responses received, which we believe are worthy of further thought. In the main, while treatment decisions are not queried, there is distress at the lack of involvement, the lack of representation, the lack of communication and at not knowing who to approach for answers to questions. This snapshot, although small, provides some insight to clinicians not to forget the constituency they serve, as communication is all important.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 22%
Student > Bachelor 7 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Researcher 3 6%
Student > Postgraduate 2 4%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 18 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 16%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 19 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 October 2017.
All research outputs
#7,208,166
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of General Medicine
#351
of 1,653 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,185
of 324,453 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of General Medicine
#8
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,653 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 324,453 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.