A Pilot Study Determining Comprehension and the Acceptability of a Cancer Research Study Website for Cancer Patients and Caregivers
Journal of Cancer Education, ISSN: 1543-0154, Vol: 35, Issue: 3, Page: 589-598
2020
- 4Citations
- 30Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations4
- Citation Indexes4
- CrossRef2
- Captures30
- Readers30
- 30
Article Description
The purpose of this pilot study was to determine if a cancer research study website increased comprehension among patients and caregivers and if website evaluations differed across patient and caregiver groups. Participants (N = 200) were cancer patients and caregivers living in the USA. Comprehension was determined by the number of correct responses to a series of questions about key characteristics of cancer research studies that are frequently unknown or misinterpreted by patients and/or caregivers. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted to determine participant evaluations across four domains: perceived website credibility, perceived website attractiveness, perceived information effectiveness, and perceived information clarity. Patients and caregivers perceived the website as highly credible and attractive and the information as both easy to understand and moderately effective in helping them make decisions about CCTs. Qualitative feedback underscores the importance of testimonials to website credibility. However, the range in the number of correct responses of certain items across participants coupled with discrepancies in comprehension between patients and caregivers suggests the need for stronger mechanisms evaluating knowledge outcomes.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85062729659&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13187-019-01501-w; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30847837; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13187-019-01501-w; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13187-019-01501-w; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13187-019-01501-w
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know