↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Readers on

mendeley
88 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.
Article details
Title
‘Information is information’: a public perspective on incidental findings in clinical and research genome‐based testing
Published in
Clinical Genetics, May 2013
DOI 10.1111/cge.12167
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The potential for genomic incidental findings is increasing with the use of genome-based testing. At the same time approaches to clinical decision making are shifting to shared decision-making models involving both the healthcare community and the public. The public's voice has been nearly absent in discussions on managing incidental findings. We conducted nine focus groups and nine interviews (n = 63) with a broad cross-section of lay public groups to elucidate public viewpoints on incidental findings that could occur as a result of genome-based testing in clinical and research situations. Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Participants wanted incidental findings disclosed to them whether or not these were clinical or research findings. Participants used different terms to define and describe incidental findings; they wanted to know that incidental findings are possible and be given a choice to learn about them. Personal utility was an important reason for disclosure, and participants believed that managing information is a shared responsibility between professionals and themselves. Broad public input is needed in order to understand and incorporate the public's perspective on management of incidental findings as disclosure guidelines, and policies are developed in clinical and research settings.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Canada 2 2%
Unknown 84 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 19%
Researcher 12 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 11%
Other 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Other 17 19%
Unknown 15 17%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 15%
Social Sciences 8 9%
Psychology 7 8%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 17 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 01 January 2014.
All research outputs
#6,992,128
of 26,245,199 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Genetics
#500
of 2,676 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,378
of 204,603 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Genetics
#10
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,245,199 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,676 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 204,603 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.