↓ Skip to main content

Patient and provider perspectives on the development of personalized medicine: a mixed-methods approach

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Community Genetics, December 2017
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
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
Title
Patient and provider perspectives on the development of personalized medicine: a mixed-methods approach
Published in
Journal of Community Genetics, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s12687-017-0349-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lauren Puryear, Natalie Downs, Andrea Nevedal, Eleanor T. Lewis, Kelly E. Ormond, Maria Bregendahl, Carlos J. Suarez, Sean P. David, Steven Charlap, Isabella Chu, Steven M. Asch, Neda Pakdaman, Sang-ick Chang, Mark R. Cullen, Latha Palaniappan

Abstract

While genetic testing gains adoption in specialty services such as oncology, neurology, and cardiology, use of genetic and genomic testing has yet to be adopted as widely in primary care. The purpose of this study is to identify and compare patient and primary care provider (PCP) expectations of genetics services in primary care. Patient and PCP perspectives were assessed through a mixed-method approach combining an online survey and semi-structured interviews in a primary care department of a large academic medical institution. A convenience sample of 100 adult primary care patients and 26 PCPs was gathered. The survey and interview questions focused on perceptions of genetic testing, experience with genetic testing, and expectations of genetic services in primary care. Patients felt that their PCP was knowledgeable about genetic testing and expected their PCP to be the first to recognize a need for genetic testing based on family history. Nonetheless, patients reported that PCPs rarely used family history information to discuss genetic risks or order testing. In contrast, PCPs felt uncertain about the clinical utility and scientific value of genetic testing. PCPs were concerned that genetic testing could cause anxiety, frustration, discrimination, and reduced insurability, and that there was unequal access to testing. PCPs described themselves as being "gatekeepers" to genetic testing but did not feel confident or have the desire to become experts in genetic testing. However, PCPs were open to increasing their working knowledge of genetic testing. Within this academic medical center, there is a gap between what patients expect and what primary care providers feel they are adequately prepared to provide in terms of genetic testing services.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 21%
Student > Master 10 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 13 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 7%
Social Sciences 4 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Arts and Humanities 3 5%
Other 13 23%
Unknown 18 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 04 July 2018.
All research outputs
#13,340,661
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Community Genetics
#199
of 369 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#213,470
of 442,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Community Genetics
#7
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 369 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 442,074 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.