↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Ageism and its clinical impact in oncogeriatry: state of knowledge and therapeutic leads

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Interventions in Aging, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 Mendeley
Title
Ageism and its clinical impact in oncogeriatry: state of knowledge and therapeutic leads
Published in
Clinical Interventions in Aging, December 2014
DOI 10.2147/cia.s70942
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah Schroyen, Stéphane Adam, Guy Jerusalem, Missotten Pierre

Abstract

Cancer is a major health problem that is widespread in elderly people. Paradoxically, older people suffering from cancer are often excluded from clinical trials and are undertreated when compared to younger patients. One explanation for these observations is age stigma (ie, stereotypes linked to age, and thus ageism). These stigmas can result in deleterious consequences for elderly people's mental and physical health in "normal" aging. What, then, is the impact in a pathological context, such as oncology? Moreover, health care professionals' attitudes can be tainted with ageism, thus leading to undesirable consequences for patients. To counter these stigmas, we can apply some possible interventions emerging from research on normal aging and from social psychology, such as intergenerational contact, activation of positive stereotypes, self-affirmation, and so on; these tools can improve opinions of aging among the elderly people themselves, as well as health care professionals, thus affecting patients' mental and physical health.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 103 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 9%
Unspecified 9 8%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Other 22 21%
Unknown 28 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 21 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 12%
Unspecified 9 8%
Social Sciences 7 7%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 32 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 22 November 2019.
All research outputs
#2,357,187
of 22,792,160 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#251
of 1,837 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,252
of 361,494 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#12
of 147 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,792,160 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,837 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 361,494 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 147 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.