↓ Skip to main content

Preferences for Genetic Testing to Identify Hereditary Colorectal Cancer: Perspectives of High-Risk Patients, Community Members, and Clinicians

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cancer Education, December 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
Title
Preferences for Genetic Testing to Identify Hereditary Colorectal Cancer: Perspectives of High-Risk Patients, Community Members, and Clinicians
Published in
Journal of Cancer Education, December 2011
DOI 10.1007/s13187-011-0286-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Judith Walsh, Millie Arora, Christina Hosenfeld, Uri Ladabaum, Miriam Kuppermann, Sara J. Knight

Abstract

The aim of this study was to establish key characteristics that patients, consumers, and health professionals value regarding genetic testing (GT) and personalized medicine using the example of GT for hereditary Lynch syndrome. We conducted a series of focus groups with individuals recruited from a clinic that follows those at high risk for hereditary cancer, individuals recruited from the community, physicians, and genetic counselors. Participants were presented with clinical scenarios about Lynch syndrome testing and asked to identify characteristics that they perceived as important in making decisions about GT. Forty-two participants (19 community members, 8 high-risk and cancer patients, 3 genetic counselors, and 8 physicians) participated. Among community members and patients, the most frequently discussed considerations were the personal impact of GT and family impact, respectively. Among physicians, the most frequently discussed topic was the characteristics of genomic services (e.g., test invasiveness); among genetic counselors, the most frequently discussed topic was evidence and recommendations. A variety of test characteristics were important in decision making about GT. High-risk patients, community members, and health care providers had different priorities. Health care professionals should be aware of differences between their own considerations about GT and those that are important to patients.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
South Africa 1 2%
Unknown 55 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 21%
Researcher 9 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 16%
Other 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 12 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Psychology 5 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 7%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 14 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 01 September 2016.
All research outputs
#6,453,990
of 22,919,505 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cancer Education
#231
of 1,143 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,051
of 241,145 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cancer Education
#3
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,919,505 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,143 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 241,145 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 74% of its contemporaries.
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 5 of them.