↓ Skip to main content

Genetic Counselors’ Current Use of Personal Health Records‐Based Family Histories in Genetic Clinics and Considerations for Their Future Adoption

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Genetic Counseling, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
Title
Genetic Counselors’ Current Use of Personal Health Records‐Based Family Histories in Genetic Clinics and Considerations for Their Future Adoption
Published in
Journal of Genetic Counseling, December 2012
DOI 10.1007/s10897-012-9557-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chaney Widmer, Jonathan P. DeShazo, Joann Bodurtha, John Quillin, Heather Creswick

Abstract

Given the widespread adoption of electronic medical records and recent emergence of electronic family history tools, we examined genetic counselors' perspectives on the emerging technology of the personal health record (PHR)-based family history tool that links to an electronic medical record (EMR). Two-hundred thirty-three genetic counselors responded to an on-line survey eliciting current use of electronic family history (EFH) tools and familiarity with PHR-based family history tools. Additionally, after being shown a series of screen shots of a newly developed PHR-based family history tool based on the U.S. Surgeon General's My Family Health Portrait (United States Department of Health and Human Services 2009), participants were surveyed about the perceived usefulness, ease of use, and impact on current workflow that this kind of tool would have in their practices. Eighty-three percent reported that their institution has an EMR, yet only 35 % have a dedicated space for family history. Eighty-two percent reported that less than 5 % of their patients have a PHR, and only 16 % have worked with patients who have a PHR. Seventy-two percent or more agreed that a PHR-based family history tool would facilitate communication, increase accuracy of information, ensure consistency in recording information, increase focus on actual counseling, reduce repetitive questions, improve efficiency, and increase the legibility and clarity. Our findings suggest that participants were familiar with existing EFH tools, but that the majority did not use them in practice. Genetic counselors' adoption of such tools is limited due to non-existence of this kind of technology or inability to integrate it into their clinics. They are also strongly in favor of adopting a PHR-based family history tool in genetics clinics, but have practical concerns that must be addressed before the tool can be implemented.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Denmark 1 2%
France 1 2%
Unknown 45 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 17%
Student > Master 8 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 12 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 23%
Computer Science 5 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 8%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 15 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 27 December 2013.
All research outputs
#12,806,388
of 22,689,790 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#555
of 1,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#151,431
of 279,188 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#7
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,689,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,138 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 279,188 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.