↓ Skip to main content

Genetic Counselors’ Perspectives and Practices Regarding Expanded Carrier Screening after Initial Clinical Availability

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Genetic Counseling, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
Title
Genetic Counselors’ Perspectives and Practices Regarding Expanded Carrier Screening after Initial Clinical Availability
Published in
Journal of Genetic Counseling, September 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10897-015-9881-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gabriel A. Lazarin, Stacey Detweiler, Shivani B. Nazareth, Elena Ashkinadze

Abstract

Expanded carrier screening (ECS), introduced in 2009, identifies carriers for dozens or hundreds of recessive diseases. At the time of its introduction into clinical use, perspectives of the genetic counseling community regarding ECS were unknown. We conducted a survey in early 2012 of GCs and report the results here. They represent a snapshot of opinions and usage at that time, providing a baseline for comparison as the technology continues to evolve and as usage increases. The survey assessed personal perspectives, opinions on clinical implementation and clinical utilization of ECS. The sample included 337 GCs of varying clinical fields, of whom 150 reported practicing in reproductive settings. Our findings demonstrate that, at the time, GCs indicated general agreement with ECS as a concept - for example, most GCs agreed that carrier screening should address diseases outside of current guidelines and also indicated personal interest in electing ECS. There were also disagreements or concerns expressed regarding appropriate pre- and post-test counseling (e.g., the content and delivery mode of adequate informed consent) and practical implementation (e.g., the amount of time available for follow-up care). This was the first quantitative study of a large number of GCs and it revealed initial overall support for ECS among the GC profession. The authors plan to re-administer a similar survey, which may reveal changes in opinions and/or utilization over time. A follow up survey would also allow further exploration of questions uncovered by these data.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 27%
Other 9 14%
Researcher 5 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 16 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 18 29%
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 06 April 2016.
All research outputs
#20,318,358
of 22,860,626 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#1,016
of 1,144 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#224,473
of 267,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#26
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,860,626 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 1,144 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. 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 267,279 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 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.