↓ Skip to main content

Bias in the Reporting of Family History: Implications for Clinical Care

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Genetic Counseling, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
Title
Bias in the Reporting of Family History: Implications for Clinical Care
Published in
Journal of Genetic Counseling, January 2012
DOI 10.1007/s10897-011-9470-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elissa M. Ozanne, Adrienne O'Connell, Colleen Bouzan, Phil Bosinoff, Taryn Rourke, Dana Dowd, Brian Drohan, Fred Millham, Pat Griffin, Elkan F. Halpern, Alan Semine, Kevin S. Hughes

Abstract

Family history of cancer is critical for identifying and managing patients at risk for cancer. However, the quality of family history data is dependent on the accuracy of patient self reporting. Therefore, the validity of family history reporting is crucial to the quality of clinical care. A retrospective review of family history data collected at a community hospital between 2005 and 2009 was performed in 43,257 women presenting for screening mammography. Reported numbers of breast, colon, prostate, lung, and ovarian cancer were compared in maternal relatives vs. paternal relatives and in first vs. second degree relatives. Significant reporting differences were found between maternal and paternal family history of cancer, in addition to degree of relative. The number of paternal family histories of cancer was significantly lower than that of maternal family histories of cancer. Similarly, the percentage of grandparents' family histories of cancer was significantly lower than the percentage of parents' family histories of cancer. This trend was found in all cancers except prostate cancer. Self-reported family history in the community setting is often influenced by both bloodline of the cancer history and the degree of relative affected. This is evident by the underreporting of paternal family histories of cancer, and also, though to a lesser extent, by degree. These discrepancies in reporting family history of cancer imply we need to take more care in collecting accurate family histories and also in the clinical management of individuals in relation to hereditary risk.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Sweden 1 2%
Unknown 46 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 17%
Other 7 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Student > Master 6 13%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 3 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 8%
Psychology 3 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 6 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 17 October 2015.
All research outputs
#5,051,790
of 25,109,675 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#283
of 1,274 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,194
of 255,219 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#7
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,109,675 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,274 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 255,219 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.