↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Medication risk communication with cancer patients in a Middle East cancer care setting

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
Medication risk communication with cancer patients in a Middle East cancer care setting
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, April 2016
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s99718
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kerry Wilbur, Maha Al-Okka, Ebaa Jumaat, Nesma Eissa, Merwa Elbashir, Sumaya M Al Saadi Al-Yafei

Abstract

Cancer treatments are frequently associated with adverse effects, but there may be a cultural reluctance by care providers to be forthcoming with patients regarding these risks for fear of promoting nonadherence. Conversely, research in a number of countries indicates high levels of patient desire for this information. We sought to explore cancer patient experiences, satisfaction, and preferences for medication risk communication in a Middle East care setting. We developed and administered a ten-item questionnaire (Arabic and English) to a convenience sample of consenting adult patients receiving treatment at the National Center for Cancer Care and Research in Qatar. One hundred and forty-three patients were interviewed. Most (88%) stated that the level of side effect information they received was sufficient, with physicians (86%) followed by pharmacists (39%) as the preferred sources. The majority (97%) agreed that knowing about possible side effects would help them recognize and manage the reaction, and 92% agreed that it would help them understand how to minimize or prevent the risks. Eighteen percent indicated that this information would make them not want to take treatment. Two-thirds (65%) had previously experienced intolerance to their cancer treatment regimen. Most patients surveyed expressed preference for the details of possible side effects they may encounter in their treatment. However, one in five considered such information a factor for nonadherence, indicating the need for patient-specific approaches when communicating medication risks.

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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 28 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 14%
Researcher 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 11 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Psychology 2 7%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 11 38%
Attention Score in Context

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 26 April 2016.
All research outputs
#19,942,887
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#1,293
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#219,500
of 314,719 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#54
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 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 1,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 314,719 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.