↓ Skip to main content

A Systematic Review of the Impact of Genetic Counseling on Risk Perception Accuracy

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Genetic Counseling, March 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources

Citations

dimensions_citation
96 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
Title
A Systematic Review of the Impact of Genetic Counseling on Risk Perception Accuracy
Published in
Journal of Genetic Counseling, March 2009
DOI 10.1007/s10897-008-9210-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chris M. R. Smerecnik, Ilse Mesters, Eline Verweij, Nanne K. de Vries, Hein de Vries

Abstract

This review presents an overview of the impact of genetic counseling on risk perception accuracy in papers published between January 2000 and February 2007. The results suggest that genetic counseling may have a positive impact on risk perception accuracy, though some studies observed no impact at all, or only for low-risk participants. Several implications for future research can be deduced. First, future researchers should link risk perception changes to objective risk estimates, define risk perception accuracy as the correct counseled risk estimate, and report both the proportion of individuals who correctly estimate their risk and the average overestimation of the risk. Second, as the descriptions of the counseling sessions were generally poor, future research should include more detailed description of these sessions and link their content to risk perception outcomes to allow interpretation of the results. Finally, the effect of genetic counseling should be examined for a wider variety of hereditary conditions. Genetic counselors should provide the necessary context in which counselees can understand risk information, use both verbal and numerical risk estimates to communicate personal risk information, and use visual aids when communicating numerical risk information.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 4%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 78 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 20%
Researcher 12 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 15%
Professor 6 7%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 16 20%
Unknown 14 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 29%
Psychology 15 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 9%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 15 18%
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 20 August 2019.
All research outputs
#4,689,468
of 22,757,090 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#286
of 1,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,619
of 106,925 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,757,090 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,141 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 106,925 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.