↓ Skip to main content

Variation in healthcare services for specialist genetic testing and implications for planning genetic services: the example of inherited retinal dystrophy in the English NHS

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Community Genetics, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#22 of 364)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
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.
Title
Variation in healthcare services for specialist genetic testing and implications for planning genetic services: the example of inherited retinal dystrophy in the English NHS
Published in
Journal of Community Genetics, January 2015
DOI 10.1007/s12687-014-0210-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mark Harrison, Stephen Birch, Martin Eden, Simon Ramsden, Tracey Farragher, Katherine Payne, Georgina Hall, Graeme CM Black

Abstract

This study aims to identify and quantify the extent of current variation in service provision of a genetic testing service for dominant and X-linked retinal dystrophies in the English National Health Service (NHS). National audit data (all test requests and results (n = 1839) issued between 2003 and 2011) and survey of English regional genetic testing services were used. Age- and gender-adjusted standardised testing rates were calculated using indirect standardisation, and survey responses were transcribed verbatim and data collated and summarised. The cumulative incidence rate of testing in England was 4.5 per 100,000 population for males and 2.6 per 100,000 population for females. The standardised testing rate (STR) varied widely between regions of England, being particularly low in the North-east (STR 0.485), with half as many tests as expected based on the size and demographic distribution of the population and high in the South-east (STR 1.355), with 36 % more tests than expected. Substantial and significantly different rates of testing were found between regional populations. Specific policy mechanisms to promote, monitor and evaluate the regional distribution of access to genetic and genomic testing are required. However, commissioners will require information on the scope and role of genetic services and the population at risk of the conditions for which patients are tested.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 21%
Researcher 5 17%
Other 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Professor 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 9 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 4 14%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 10%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 9 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 31 March 2015.
All research outputs
#1,372,638
of 22,778,347 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Community Genetics
#22
of 364 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,269
of 352,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Community Genetics
#3
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,778,347 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 364 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 352,048 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.