↓ Skip to main content

“It’s all very well reading the letters in the genome, but it’s a long way to being able to write”: Men’s interpretations of undergoing genetic profiling to determine future risk of prostate cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Familial Cancer, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
Title
“It’s all very well reading the letters in the genome, but it’s a long way to being able to write”: Men’s interpretations of undergoing genetic profiling to determine future risk of prostate cancer
Published in
Familial Cancer, July 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10689-014-9734-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elizabeth K. Bancroft, Elena Castro, Audrey Ardern-Jones, Clare Moynihan, Elizabeth Page, Natalie Taylor, Rosalind A. Eeles, Emma Rowley, Karen Cox

Abstract

A family history of prostate cancer (PC) is one of the main risk factors for the disease. A number of common single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that confer small but cumulatively substantial risks of PC have been identified, opening the possibility for the use of SNPs in PC risk stratification for targeted screening and prevention in the future. The objective of this study was to explore the psychosocial impact of receiving information about genetic risk of PC. The participants were men who had a family history of PC and were enrolled in a screening study providing research genetic profiling alongside screening for PC. A combination of questionnaires and in-depth interviews were used. Questionnaires were completed by men at two time points: both before and after joining the study and going through the genetic profiling process. The interviews were completed after all study process were complete and were analysed using a framework analysis. In total 95 men completed both questionnaires and 26 men were interviewed. A number of issues facing men at risk of PC were identified. The results fell into two main categories: personal relevance and societal relevance. The strength of men's innate beliefs about their risk, shaped by genetic and environmental assumptions, outweigh the information provided by genetic testing. Men felt genetic profile results would have future use for accessing prostate screening, being aware of symptoms and in communicating with others. The findings reinforce the importance of providing contextual information alongside genetic profiling test results, and emphasises the importance of the counselling process in providing genetic risk information. This research raises some key issues to facilitate clinical practice and future research related to the use of genetic profiling to determine risk of PC and other diseases.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 5%
Unknown 21 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 27%
Student > Master 5 23%
Other 2 9%
Researcher 2 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 5 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 14%
Psychology 2 9%
Arts and Humanities 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 8 36%
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 09 July 2014.
All research outputs
#15,302,478
of 22,758,248 outputs
Outputs from Familial Cancer
#335
of 558 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,063
of 227,589 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Familial Cancer
#6
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,758,248 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 558 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 227,589 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.