↓ Skip to main content

Using decision analytic methods to assess the utility of family history tools

Overview of attention for article published in American Journal of Preventive Medicine, February 2003
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 (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Using decision analytic methods to assess the utility of family history tools
Published in
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, February 2003
DOI 10.1016/s0749-3797(02)00594-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anupam Tyagi, Jill Morris

Abstract

Family history may be a useful tool for identifying people at increased risk of disease and for developing targeted interventions for individuals at higher-than-average risk. This article addresses the issue of how to examine the utility of a family history tool for public health and preventive medicine. We propose the use of a decision analytic framework for the assessment of a family history tool and outline the major elements of a decision analytic approach, including analytic perspective, costs, outcome measurements, and data needed to assess the value of a family history tool. We describe the use of sensitivity analysis to address uncertainty in parameter values and imperfect information. To illustrate the use of decision analytic methods to assess the value of family history, we present an example analysis based on using family history of colorectal cancer to improve rates of colorectal cancer screening.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 8%
Unknown 12 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 38%
Student > Master 3 23%
Other 1 8%
Professor 1 8%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 3 23%
Psychology 2 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 15%
Social Sciences 2 15%
Environmental Science 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 2014.
All research outputs
#5,446,210
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Preventive Medicine
#2,634
of 5,270 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,600
of 140,955 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Preventive Medicine
#11
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,270 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 41.1. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 140,955 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.