| Title |
Ethical, social, and cultural issues related to clinical genetic testing and counseling in low- and middle-income countries: protocol for a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-017-0535-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Adrina Zhong, Benedict Darren, Helen Dimaras |
| Abstract |
There has been little focus in the literature on how to build genetic testing and counseling services in low- and middle-income countries in a responsible, ethical, and culturally appropriate manner. It is unclear to what extent this area is being explored and what form further research should take. The proposed knowledge synthesis aims to fill this gap in knowledge and mine the existing data to determine the breadth of work in this area and identify ethical, social, and cultural issues that have emerged. An integrated knowledge translation approach will be undertaken by engaging knowledge users throughout the review to ensure relevance to their practice. Electronic databases encompassing various disciplines, such as healthcare, social sciences, and public health, will be searched. Studies that address clinical genetic testing and/or counseling and ethical, social, and/or cultural issues of these genetic services, and are performed in low- and middle-income countries as defined by World Bank will be considered for inclusion. Two independent reviewers will be involved in a two-stage literature screening process, data extraction, and quality appraisal. Studies included in the review will be analyzed by thematic analysis. A narrative synthesis guided by the social ecological model will be used to summarize findings. This systematic review will provide a foundation of evidence regarding ethical, social, and cultural issues related to clinical genetic testing and counseling in low- and middle-income countries. Using the social ecological model as a conceptual framework will facilitate the understanding of broader influences of the sociocultural context on an individual's experience with clinical genetic testing and counseling, thereby informing interdisciplinary sectors in future recommendations for practice and policy. PROSPERO CRD42016042894. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 3 | 75% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 107 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 14% |
| Researcher | 14 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 17 | 16% |
| Unknown | 37 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 21% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 4% |
| Psychology | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 15 | 14% |
| Unknown | 44 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 28 July 2017.
All research outputs
#14,482,385
of 25,522,520 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,489
of 2,236 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,807
of 325,166 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#34
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,522,520 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,236 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 325,166 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.