| Title |
Clinicians’ use of breast cancer risk assessment tools according to their perceived importance of breast cancer risk factors: an international survey
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Community Genetics, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12687-018-0362-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anne Brédart, Jean-Luc Kop, Antonis C. Antoniou, Alex P. Cunningham, Antoine De Pauw, Marc Tischkowitz, Hans Ehrencrona, Marjanka K. Schmidt, Sylvie Dolbeault, Kerstin Rhiem, Douglas F. Easton, Peter Devilee, Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet, Rita Schmutlzer |
| Abstract |
The BOADICEA breast cancer (BC) risk assessment model and its associated Web Application v3 (BWA) tool are being extended to incorporate additional genetic and non-genetic BC risk factors. From an online survey through the BOADICEA website and UK, Dutch, French and Swedish national genetic societies, we explored the relationships between the usage frequencies of the BWA and six other common BC risk assessment tools and respondents' perceived importance of BC risk factors. Respondents (N = 443) varied in age, country and clinical seniority but comprised mainly genetics health professionals (82%) and BWA users (93%). Oncology professionals perceived reproductive, hormonal (exogenous) and lifestyle BC risk factors as more important in BC risk assessment compared to genetics professionals (p values < 0.05 to 0.0001). BWA was used more frequently by respondents who gave high weight to breast tumour pathology and low weight to personal BC history as BC risk factors. BWA use was positively related to the weight given to hormonal BC risk factors. The importance attributed to lifestyle and BMI BC risk factors was not associated with the use of BWA or any of the other tools. Next version of the BWA encompassing additional BC risk factors will facilitate more comprehensive BC risk assessment in genetics and oncology practice. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 41 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 24% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 5% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 5% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 19 | 46% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 5% |
| Psychology | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 22 | 54% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 09 February 2019.
All research outputs
#20,468,008
of 23,026,672 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Community Genetics
#337
of 371 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#293,436
of 332,024 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Community Genetics
#6
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,026,672 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 371 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 332,024 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.