You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Genetics and Insurance in Australia: Concerns around a Self-Regulated Industry
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Public Health Genomics, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1159/000481450 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ainsley J. Newson, Jane Tiller, Louise A. Keogh, Margaret Otlowski, Paul Lacaze |
| Abstract |
Regulating the use of genetic information in insurance is an issue of ongoing international debate. In Australia, providers of life and other mutually rated insurance products can request applicants to disclose all results from any genetic test. Insurers can then use this information to adjust premiums and make policy decisions. The Australian Financial Services Council (FSC; an industry body) developed and maintains the relevant industry standard, which was updated in late 2016. Aims/Objective: To review the 2016 FSC Standard in light of relevant research and determine the legitimacy of the Australian regulatory environment regarding use of genetic information by insurers. We identified five concerns arising from the 2016 FSC Standard: (1) use of results obtained from research; (2) the requirement for an applicant to disclose whether they are "considering" a genetic test; (3) failure to account for genome sequencing and other technology developments; (4) limited evidence regarding adverse selection; and (5) the inappropriateness of industry self-regulation. Industry self-regulation of the use of genetic information by life insurers, combined with a lack of government oversight, is inappropriate and threatens to impede the progress of genomic medicine in Australia. At this critical time, Australia requires closer government oversight of the use of genetic information in insurance. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 2 | 40% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 27 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 19% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 15% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 10 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 4 | 15% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 11% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Unknown | 10 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 118. 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 02 June 2018.
All research outputs
#300,465
of 23,007,053 outputs
Outputs from Public Health Genomics
#3
of 386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,081
of 327,831 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Public Health Genomics
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,053 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 386 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 327,831 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them