↓ Skip to main content

Use of a Patient‐Entered Family Health History Tool with Decision Support in Primary Care: Impact of Identification of Increased Risk Patients on Genetic Counseling Attendance

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Genetic Counseling, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
Title
Use of a Patient‐Entered Family Health History Tool with Decision Support in Primary Care: Impact of Identification of Increased Risk Patients on Genetic Counseling Attendance
Published in
Journal of Genetic Counseling, August 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10897-014-9753-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adam H. Buchanan, Carol A. Christianson, Tiffany Himmel, Karen P. Powell, Astrid Agbaje, Geoffrey S. Ginsburg, Vincent C. Henrich, Lori A. Orlando

Abstract

Several barriers inhibit collection and use of detailed family health history (FHH) in primary care. MeTree, a computer-based FHH intake and risk assessment tool with clinical decision support, was developed to overcome these barriers. Here, we describe the impact of MeTree on genetic counseling (GC) referrals and attendance. Non-adopted, English speaking adults scheduled for a well-visit in two community-based primary-care clinics were invited to participate in an Implementation-Effectiveness study of MeTree. Participants' demographic characteristics and beliefs were assessed at baseline. Immediately after an appointment with a patient for whom GC was recommended, clinicians indicated whether they referred the patient and, if not, why. The study genetic counselor kept a database of patients with a GC recommendation and contacted those with a referral. Of 542 patients completing MeTree, 156 (29 %) received a GC recommendation. Of these, 46 % (n = 72) were referred and 21 % (n = 33) underwent counseling. Patient preferences, additional clinical information unavailable to MeTree, and an incomplete clinician evaluation of the FHH accounted for the 85 patients clinicians chose not to refer. Although MeTree identified a significant proportion of patients for whom GC was recommended, persistent barriers indicate the need for improved referral processes and patient and physician education about the benefits of GC.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 79 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 23%
Researcher 17 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 14 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Psychology 6 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 23 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 February 2015.
All research outputs
#14,199,380
of 22,761,738 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#672
of 1,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,961
of 230,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#10
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,761,738 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 230,674 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.