↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Successful strategies in implementing a multidisciplinary team working in the care of patients with cancer: an overview and synthesis of the available literature

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
210 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
399 Mendeley
Title
Successful strategies in implementing a multidisciplinary team working in the care of patients with cancer: an overview and synthesis of the available literature
Published in
Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, January 2018
DOI 10.2147/jmdh.s117945
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tayana Soukup, Benjamin W Lamb, Sonal Arora, Ara Darzi, Nick Sevdalis, James SA Green

Abstract

In many health care systems globally, cancer care is driven by multidisciplinary cancer teams (MDTs). A large number of studies in the past few years and across different literature have been performed to better understand how these teams work and how they manage patient care. The aim of our literature review is to synthesize current scientific and clinical understanding on cancer MDTs and their organization; this, in turn, should provide an up-to-date summary of the current knowledge that those planning or leading cancer services can use as a guide for service implementation or improvement. We describe the characteristics of an effective MDT and factors that influence how these teams work. A range of factors pertaining to teamwork, availability of patient information, leadership, team and meeting management, and workload can affect how well MDTs are implemented within patient care. We also review how to assess and improve these teams. We present a range of instruments designed to be used with cancer MDTs - including observational tools, self-assessments, and checklists. We conclude with a practical outline of what appears to be the best practices to implement (Dos) and practices to avoid (Don'ts) when setting up MDT-driven cancer care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 399 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 399 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 57 14%
Student > Master 47 12%
Other 27 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 6%
Student > Postgraduate 21 5%
Other 72 18%
Unknown 150 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 88 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 56 14%
Psychology 11 3%
Social Sciences 10 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 2%
Other 60 15%
Unknown 166 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 21 March 2021.
All research outputs
#6,685,474
of 23,607,611 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
#258
of 863 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,431
of 444,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
#6
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,607,611 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 863 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 444,877 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 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 61% of its contemporaries.