↓ Skip to main content

Direct-to-consumer genomic testing from the perspective of the health professional: a systematic review of the literature

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Community Genetics, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#34 of 361)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
Title
Direct-to-consumer genomic testing from the perspective of the health professional: a systematic review of the literature
Published in
Journal of Community Genetics, January 2013
DOI 10.1007/s12687-012-0135-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lesley Goldsmith, Leigh Jackson, Anita O’Connor, Heather Skirton

Abstract

Since the 1990s, there has been a rapid expansion in the number and type of genetic tests available via health professionals; the last 10 years, however, have seen certain types of genetic and genomic tests available direct-to-consumer. The aim of this systematic review was to explore the topic of direct-to-consumer genetic testing from the health professional perspective. Search terms used to identify studies were 'direct-to-consumer', personal genom*, health* professional*, physician* 'genomic, genetic' in five bibliographic databases, together with citation searching. Eight quantitative papers were reviewed. Findings indicate a low level of awareness and experience of direct-to-consumer testing in health professionals. Inconsistent levels of knowledge and understanding were also found with two studies showing significant effects for gender and age. Concerns about clinical utility and lack of counselling were identified. Health professionals specialising in genetics were most likely to express concerns. There was also evidence of perceived increased workload for health professionals post-testing. However, some health professionals rated such tests clinically useful and cited benefits such as the increased opportunity for early screening. Despite limited awareness, knowledge and experience of actual cases, we concluded that the concerns and potential benefits expressed may be warranted. It may be useful to explore the attitudes and experiences of health professionals in more depth using a qualitative approach. Finally, it is essential that health professionals receive sufficient education and guidelines to equip them to help patients presenting with the results of these tests.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
South Africa 1 1%
Unknown 78 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 16%
Researcher 11 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 10 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 15%
Social Sciences 8 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 11 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 06 May 2021.
All research outputs
#2,122,201
of 22,694,633 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Community Genetics
#34
of 361 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,797
of 284,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Community Genetics
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,694,633 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 361 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 284,968 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them