↓ Skip to main content

Genetic Counseling, Activism and ‘Genotype‐First’ Diagnosis of Developmental Disorders

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
Genetic Counseling, Activism and ‘Genotype‐First’ Diagnosis of Developmental Disorders
Published in
Journal of Genetic Counseling, July 2012
DOI 10.1007/s10897-012-9515-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel Navon

Abstract

This paper presents a sociological examination of the role of genetic counselors as advocates, not only for patients and their families, but also for genetic conditions themselves. In becoming activists for new disorders, genetic counselors are helping to create new categories that will shape expectations and treatment regimens for both existing patients and those who are yet to be diagnosed. By virtue of their expertise and their position at the intersection of several key professions and constituencies, genetic counselors are likely to play a central role in the way the genetic testing technologies, and especially 'genotype-first' diagnosis, impacts the way we understand and categorize developmental difference. I outline some of the promises and dangers that this kind of activism holds for people with developmental disabilities, and particularly the challenge presented by systemic ascertainment bias in the face of genotype-phenotype uncertainty. I argue that new testing techniques like microarray analysis that do not need to be targeted on the basis of clinical presentation throw these challenges into sharp relief, and that the genetic counseling community should consider how to marry advocacy for new genetic conditions with an emphasis on the indeterminate developmental potential of every child.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 5%
Unknown 21 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 41%
Researcher 3 14%
Other 1 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Professor 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 4 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 32%
Social Sciences 5 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Linguistics 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 5 23%
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 31 July 2012.
All research outputs
#15,248,503
of 22,673,450 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#769
of 1,137 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,192
of 163,008 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#7
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,673,450 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,137 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 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 163,008 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.