↓ Skip to main content

Client Views and Attitudes to Non‐Invasive Prenatal Diagnosis for Sickle Cell Disease, Thalassaemia and Cystic Fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Genetic Counseling, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Client Views and Attitudes to Non‐Invasive Prenatal Diagnosis for Sickle Cell Disease, Thalassaemia and Cystic Fibrosis
Published in
Journal of Genetic Counseling, May 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10897-014-9725-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Melissa Hill, Cecilia Compton, Madhavi Karunaratna, Celine Lewis, Lyn Chitty

Abstract

In the near future the availability of non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) for single gene disorders will change the prenatal diagnosis options available to couples who are carriers of conditions such as cystic fibrosis, sickle cell disorder and thalassaemia. Client opinions about NIPD are needed to inform the implementation of NIPD for single gene disorders. This qualitative study used two focus groups (n = 12) and one-to-one interviews (n = 16) with carriers and support group representatives of sickle cell disease, thalassaemia and cystic fibrosis. Discussions were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. Opinions about NIPD were very positive and participants valued the opportunity to have safe and early testing. Uptake of prenatal testing is likely to increase as women who had previously declined invasive testing expressed interest in having NIPD. Participant concerns about NIPD centred on the need for accuracy to be high to be used for subsequent decision making about termination of pregnancy. Participants also raised concerns that less thought may be given to having a blood test compared to an invasive test and that the perceived ease of a blood test may bring increased pressure to have testing. Participants thought NIPD should be offered through existing specialist services to ensure appropriate genetic counseling and support. Maintaining all testing options is important as some people may prefer invasive testing over NIPD if invasive testing was more accurate or if invasive testing could give information about other conditions such as Down syndrome.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 86 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 15%
Student > Master 12 14%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 10%
Other 8 9%
Other 16 18%
Unknown 19 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 16%
Psychology 11 13%
Social Sciences 10 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 7%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 23 26%
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 15 March 2016.
All research outputs
#20,228,822
of 22,754,104 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#1,013
of 1,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,417
of 227,522 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#17
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,754,104 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 1,141 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. 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 227,522 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 19 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.