↓ Skip to main content

Implementing non-invasive prenatal testing into publicly funded antenatal screening services for Down syndrome and other conditions in Aotearoa New Zealand

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, October 2017
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
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
Title
Implementing non-invasive prenatal testing into publicly funded antenatal screening services for Down syndrome and other conditions in Aotearoa New Zealand
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12884-017-1535-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sara Filoche, Fiona Cram, Bev Lawton, Angela Beard, Peter Stone

Abstract

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is a relatively new screen for congenital conditions - specifically, common fetal aneuploidies including Down Syndrome. The test is based on isolating freely circulating fragments of fetal-placental DNA that is present in the mother's blood. NIPT has a superior clinical performance compared to current screening, and has been available privately in Aotearoa New Zealand for the last 4 years. The proposed implementation of NIPT as a publicly funded service may widen the inequity in access to optional antenatal screening that already exists in this country. This paper discusses precautions that can be taken at the health system, organisation, and personnel levels to ensure that access to NIPT is equitable, that services are culturally responsive, and women's informed choice is promoted and protected. The adoption of NIPT into publicly funded services is an example of how genetic screening is becoming mainstreamed into health services; as such our approach may also have relevance around the introduction of other genetic and genomic screening initiatives.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 13%
Unspecified 6 13%
Student > Master 4 8%
Other 3 6%
Other 10 21%
Unknown 11 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 19%
Unspecified 6 13%
Social Sciences 5 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 8%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 14 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 05 October 2017.
All research outputs
#14,366,228
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#2,732
of 4,234 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,022
of 323,110 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#74
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 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 4,234 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 323,110 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 97 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.