| Title |
Standards for the Reporting of Genetic Counseling Interventions in Research and Other Studies (GCIRS): an NSGC Task Force Report
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Genetic Counseling, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10897-017-0076-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gillian W. Hooker, D Babu, MF Myers, H Zierhut, M McAllister |
| Abstract |
As the demand for evidence to support the value of genetic counseling increases, it is critical that reporting of genetic counseling interventions in research and other types of studies (e.g. process improvement or service evaluation studies) adopt greater rigor. As in other areas of healthcare, the appraisal, synthesis, and translation of research findings into genetic counseling practice are likely to be improved if clear specifications of genetic counseling interventions are reported when studies involving genetic counseling are published. To help improve reporting practices, the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) convened a task force in 2015 to develop consensus standards for the reporting of genetic counseling interventions. Following review by the NSGC Board of Directors, the NSGC Practice Guidelines Committee and the editorial board of the Journal of Genetic Counseling, 23 items across 8 domains were proposed as standards for the reporting of genetic counseling interventions in the published literature (GCIRS: Genetic Counseling Intervention Reporting Standards). The authors recommend adoption of these standards by authors and journals when reporting studies involving genetic counseling interventions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 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 | 18 | 53% |
| Canada | 3 | 9% |
| Colombia | 3 | 9% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 3% |
| Mexico | 1 | 3% |
| Djibouti | 1 | 3% |
| Côte d'Ivoire | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 5 | 15% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 19 | 56% |
| Scientists | 9 | 26% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 12% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 60 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 15% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Researcher | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 22% |
| Unknown | 14 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 20% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 11 | 18% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 7% |
| Psychology | 3 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 15% |
| Unknown | 19 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 19 September 2019.
All research outputs
#1,565,994
of 25,446,666 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#42
of 1,286 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,459
of 325,050 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#3
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,446,666 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,286 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 325,050 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.