↓ Skip to main content

Attitudes of Individuals with Gaucher Disease toward Substrate Reduction Therapies

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

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Attitudes of Individuals with Gaucher Disease toward Substrate Reduction Therapies
Published in
Journal of Genetic Counseling, August 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10897-017-0137-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Victoria F. Wagner, Hope Northrup, S. Shahrukh Hashmi, Joanne M. Nguyen, Mary Kay Koenig, Jessica M. Davis

Abstract

Type 1 Gaucher disease (GD) is the most common lysosomal storage disorder. Previously, treatment for GD was limited to intravenous enzyme replacement therapies (ERTs). More recently, oral substrate reduction therapies (SRTs) were approved for treatment of GD. Although both therapies alleviate disease symptoms, attitudes toward SRTs and patient perceptions of health while using SRT have not been well established. Electronic surveys were administered to adults with GD and asked about treatment history, attitudes toward SRTs, and perception of health while using SRTs as compared to ERTs, if applicable to the participant. ERT users that were offered treatment with SRTs cited potential side effects, wanting more research on SRTs, and satisfaction with their current treatment regimen as reasons for declining SRTs. SRT users expressed convenience and less invasiveness as reasons for choosing SRTs. Additionally, those using SRTs most often perceived their health to be similar to when they previously used ERT. Participant responses illustrate that attitudes toward SRTs can be variable and that one particular treatment may not be ideal for all patients with GD depending on individual perceptions of factors such as convenience, invasiveness, or side effects. Thus, individuals with GD should be counseled adequately by healthcare providers about both ERTs and SRTs for treatment of GD now that SRTs are clinically available.

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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 21%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Other 1 5%
Lecturer 1 5%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Other 3 16%
Unknown 7 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 3 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 5%
Psychology 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 9 47%
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 15 August 2017.
All research outputs
#17,911,821
of 22,997,544 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#913
of 1,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#228,208
of 318,285 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#24
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,997,544 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,160 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 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 318,285 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.