↓ Skip to main content

How does genetic risk information for Lynch syndrome translate to risk management behaviours?

Overview of attention for article published in Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice, January 2017
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 260)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
Title
How does genetic risk information for Lynch syndrome translate to risk management behaviours?
Published in
Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13053-016-0061-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emma Steel, Andrew Robbins, Mark Jenkins, Louisa Flander, Clara Gaff, Louise Keogh

Abstract

There is limited research on why some individuals who have undergone predictive genetic testing for Lynch syndrome do not adhere to screening recommendations. This study aimed to explore qualitatively how Lynch syndrome non-carriers and carriers translate genetic risk information and advice to decisions about risk managment behaviours in the Australian healthcare system. Participants of the Australasian Colorectal Cancer Family Registry who had undergone predictive genetic testing for Lynch syndrome were interviewed on their risk management behaviours. Transcripts were analysed thematically using a comparative coding analysis. Thirty-three people were interviewed. Of the non-carriers (n = 16), 2 reported having apparently unnecessary colonoscopies, and 6 were unsure about what population-based colorectal cancer screening entails. Of the carriers (n = 17), 2 reported they had not had regular colonoscopies, and spoke about their discomfort with the screening process and a lack of faith in the procedure's ability to reduce their risk of developing colorectal cancer. Of the female carriers (n = 9), 2 could not recall being informed about the associated risk of gynaecological cancers. Non-carriers and female carriers of Lynch syndrome could benefit from further clarity and advice about appropriate risk management options. For those carriers who did not adhere to colonoscopy screening, a lack of faith in both genetic test results and screening were evident. It is essential that consistent advice is offered to both carriers and non-carriers of Lynch syndrome.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 19%
Student > Bachelor 5 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Other 3 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Other 8 25%
Unknown 4 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 9%
Psychology 3 9%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 7 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 15 December 2017.
All research outputs
#5,140,987
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice
#34
of 260 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,036
of 421,665 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 260 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 421,665 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.