↓ Skip to main content

Perceptions of Tissue Storage in a Dementia Population Among Spouses and Offspring

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Genetic Counseling, February 2015
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
1 X user
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
Title
Perceptions of Tissue Storage in a Dementia Population Among Spouses and Offspring
Published in
Journal of Genetic Counseling, February 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10897-015-9818-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Megan M. Martin, Erin W. Rothwell, Vickie L. Venne, Norman L. Foster

Abstract

Cognitively impaired patients with dementia often rely on health advocates or guardians, such as spouses or adult offspring, to consent for medical procedures. These family members may also decide whether an autopsy is performed after death or whether their family member donates tissues. However, spouses are not genetically related to the patient and may have different perspectives than genetically related family members when making medical decisions with genetic implications, such as participation in a tissue repository (biobank). Interviews were conducted with spouses and adult offspring of individuals with a progressive dementing disease. Both spouses and offspring were supportive of the patient with dementia to participate in tissue storage. The top perceived benefits of tissue storage in both offspring and spouses were future value for family members and advancement of medical knowledge. Concerns included misuse of the tissue and insurance discrimination. Although the personal genetic implications differ between spouses and offspring, they share similar attitudes about the importance of tissue banking for the individual with a dementing disease.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 2 4%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 46 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Researcher 6 12%
Other 5 10%
Student > Master 5 10%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 12 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 20%
Psychology 7 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 8%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 15 31%
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 25 August 2016.
All research outputs
#13,425,416
of 22,787,797 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#609
of 1,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#173,583
of 352,350 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#9
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,787,797 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,142 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 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 352,350 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.