You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Identifying Needs: a Qualitative Study of women's Experiences Regarding Rapid Genetic Testing for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer in the DNA BONus Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Genetic Counseling, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10897-016-9996-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mirjam Tonheim Augestad, Hildegunn Høberg‐Vetti, Cathrine Bjorvatn, Ragnhild Johanne Tveit Sekse |
| Abstract |
Genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer is increasingly being offered in newly diagnosed breast and ovarian cancer patients. This genetic information may influence treatment decisions. However, there are some concerns that genetic testing offered in an already vulnerable situation might be an extra burden to these women. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of women who had been offered and accepted genetic testing when newly diagnosed with breast or ovarian cancer. Four semi-structured focus-group interviews were conducted with 17 women recruited from a Norwegian multicenter study. The material was condensed, and conventional qualitative analysis was used to identify patterns in the participants' descriptions. Three core themes were identified: 1) being "beside oneself" 2) altruism and ethical dilemmas 3) the need for support and counselling to assist the decision process. The present study indicates that women who are offered genetic testing when newly diagnosed with breast or ovarian cancer want a consultation with a health professional. Personalized support and counselling might empower women to improve their ability to manage and comprehend this overwhelming situation, and find meaning in this experience. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 59 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 29% |
| Researcher | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 17% |
| Unknown | 17 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 7% |
| Psychology | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Unknown | 21 | 36% |
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 29 July 2016.
All research outputs
#20,336,685
of 22,881,964 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#1,016
of 1,145 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#320,219
of 365,664 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#15
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,964 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,145 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 365,664 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.