| Title |
Telegenetics: an Update on Availability and Use of Telemedicine in Clinical Genetics Service
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Medical Systems, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10916-016-0666-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Irena Vrečar, Dimitar Hristovski, Borut Peterlin |
| Abstract |
Although telegenetics as a telehealth tool for online genetic counseling was primarily initiated to improve access to genetics care in remote areas, the increasing demand for genetic services with personalized genomic medicine, shortage of clinical geneticists, and the expertise of established genetic centers make telegenetics an attractive alternative to traditional in-person genetic counseling. We review the scope of current telegenetics practice, user experience of patients and clinicians, quality of care in comparison to traditional counseling, and the advantages and disadvantages of information and communication technology in telegenetics. We found that live videoconference consultations are generally well accepted by both clients and clinicians, and these have been successfully used in several genetic counseling settings in practice. Future use of telegenetics could increase patients' access to specialized care and help in meeting the increasing demand for genetic services. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 75% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 113 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 20 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 12% |
| Researcher | 10 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 17 | 15% |
| Unknown | 31 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 13 | 12% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 26 | 23% |
| Unknown | 35 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 22 May 2020.
All research outputs
#3,125,618
of 22,914,829 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Systems
#85
of 1,154 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,323
of 394,928 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Systems
#2
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,914,829 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,154 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 394,928 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.