↓ Skip to main content

A cost analysis of a cancer genetic service model in the UK

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Community Genetics, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
Title
A cost analysis of a cancer genetic service model in the UK
Published in
Journal of Community Genetics, February 2016
DOI 10.1007/s12687-016-0266-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ingrid Slade, Helen Hanson, Angela George, Kelly Kohut, Ann Strydom, Sarah Wordsworth, Nazneen Rahman, for the MCG programme

Abstract

Technological advances in DNA sequencing have made gene testing fast and more affordable. Evidence of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of genetic service models is essential for the successful translation of sequencing improvements for patient benefit, but remain sparse in the genetics literature. In particular, there is a lack of detailed cost data related to genetic services. A detailed micro-costing of 28 possible pathways relating to breast and/or ovarian cancer and BRCA testing was carried out by defining service activities and establishing associated costs. These data were combined with patient-level data from a Royal Marsden Cancer Genetics Service audit over a 6-month period during which BRCA testing was offered to individuals at ≥10 % risk of having a mutation, in line with current NICE guidance. The average cost across all patient pathways was £2227.39 (range £376.51 to £13,553.10). The average cost per pathway for an affected person was £1897.75 compared to £2410.53 for an unaffected person. Of the women seen in the Cancer Genetics Service during the audit, 38 % were affected with breast and/or ovarian cancer, and 62 % were unaffected but concerned about their family history. The most efficient service strategy is to identify unaffected relatives from an affected individual with an identified BRCA mutation. Implementation of this strategy would require more comprehensive testing of all eligible cancer patients, which could be achieved by integrating BRCA testing into oncology services. Such integration would be also more time-efficient and deliver greater equity of access to BRCA testing than the standard service model.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 65 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 21%
Other 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 9 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 31%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 13%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Other 14 21%
Unknown 10 15%
Attention Score in Context

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 29 February 2016.
All research outputs
#17,790,561
of 22,852,911 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Community Genetics
#297
of 365 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,370
of 297,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Community Genetics
#4
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,852,911 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 365 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 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 297,542 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.