↓ Skip to main content

What's the Harm? Genetic Counselor Perceptions of Adverse Effects of Genetics Service Provision by Non‐Genetics Professionals

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Genetic Counseling, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
75 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
Title
What's the Harm? Genetic Counselor Perceptions of Adverse Effects of Genetics Service Provision by Non‐Genetics Professionals
Published in
Journal of Genetic Counseling, June 2013
DOI 10.1007/s10897-013-9605-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tracy A. Bensend, Patricia McCarthy Veach, Kristin B. Niendorf

Abstract

Anecdotal accounts suggest some patients have experienced negative outcomes as a result of receiving genetics services from non-genetics providers, but empirical evidence of these incidents and their outcomes is limited. This study examined genetic counselors' perceptions of the occurrence of such incidents in the state of Minnesota. Twenty-five genetic counselors completed an on-line survey and 20 also participated in a semi-structured telephone interview. The interviewees recalled and described 37 specific incidents they perceived as having negative outcomes for patients and/or their families. Inductive and cross-case analysis revealed common themes including: adverse psychosocial effects, inadequate genetic counseling, genetic testing and screening errors, medical mismanagement, negative shifts in attitudes toward medical providers, and unnecessary use of health care resources. Commonly mentioned strategies for preventing/mitigating negative outcomes included: educational outreach and awareness programs for medical providers and the general public, standardized testing and screening processes, and implementing mechanisms for reporting and addressing adverse events. Additional findings, practice and policy implications, and research recommendations are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 72 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 27%
Student > Bachelor 10 13%
Researcher 10 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 12%
Other 7 9%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 14 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 19%
Psychology 8 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 17 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 02 August 2021.
All research outputs
#2,591,332
of 22,713,403 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#120
of 1,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,190
of 196,981 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#3
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,713,403 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,141 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 done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 196,981 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 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.