| 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, Pierre Missotten |
| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
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 | 14 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 17% |
| Unknown | 33 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 21 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 7% |
| Unknown | 37 | 35% |
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
#2,744,540
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#288
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,034
of 369,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#10
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 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 1,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 369,111 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.