↓ Skip to main content

Physician Knowledge of Human Genetic Variation, Beliefs About Race and Genetics, and Use of Race in Clinical Decision-making

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
Title
Physician Knowledge of Human Genetic Variation, Beliefs About Race and Genetics, and Use of Race in Clinical Decision-making
Published in
Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, June 2018
DOI 10.1007/s40615-018-0505-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sherrill L. Sellers, Brooke A. Cunningham, Vence L. Bonham

Abstract

Race in the USA has an enduring connection to health and well-being. It is often used as a proxy for ancestry and genetic variation, although self-identified race does not establish genetic risk of disease for an individual patient. How physicians reconcile these seemingly paradoxical facts as they make clinical decisions is unknown. To examine physicians' genetic knowledge and beliefs about race with their use of race in clinical decision-making DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey of a national sample of clinically active general internists RESULTS: Seven hundred eighty-seven physicians completed the survey. Regression models indicate that genetic knowledge was not significantly associated with use of race. However, physicians who agreed with notions of race as a biological phenomenon and those who agreed that race has clinical importance were more likely to report using race in their decision-making. Genomic and precision medicine holds considerable promise for narrowing the gap in health among racial groups in the USA. For this promise to be realized, our findings suggest that future research and education efforts related to race, genomics, and health must go beyond educating health care providers about common genetic conditions to delving into assumptions about race and genetics.

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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 17%
Other 3 10%
Librarian 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 13 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Psychology 2 7%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 12 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 13 November 2020.
All research outputs
#4,648,406
of 25,494,370 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities
#420
of 1,267 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,568
of 341,756 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities
#11
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,494,370 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,267 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 341,756 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.