↓ Skip to main content

Impairment Experiences, Identity and Attitudes Towards Genetic Screening: the Views of People with Spinal Muscular Atrophy

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Genetic Counseling, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
Title
Impairment Experiences, Identity and Attitudes Towards Genetic Screening: the Views of People with Spinal Muscular Atrophy
Published in
Journal of Genetic Counseling, June 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10897-017-0122-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Felicity K. Boardman, Philip J. Young, Frances E. Griffiths

Abstract

Developments in genetics are rapidly changing the capacity and scope of screening practices. However, people with genetic conditions have been under-represented in the literature exploring their implications. This mixed methods study explores the attitudes of people with Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) towards three different population-level genetic screening programmes for SMA: pre-conception, prenatal and newborn screening. Drawing on qualitative interviews (n = 15) and a survey (n = 82), this study demonstrates that more severely affected individuals with early-onset symptoms (Type II SMA), are less likely to support screening and more likely to view SMA positively than those with milder, later onset and/or fluctuating symptoms (Types III/ IV SMA). Indeed, this clinically milder group were more likely to support all forms of screening and view SMA negatively. This paper highlights that screening is a complex issue for people with genetic conditions, and the nature of impairment experiences plays a critical role in shaping attitudes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 74 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 14%
Student > Master 10 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 19 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 11%
Psychology 8 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 21 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 03 July 2017.
All research outputs
#17,878,254
of 22,985,065 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#910
of 1,159 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#225,328
of 314,551 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#22
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,985,065 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,159 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 314,551 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.