Michele C. Gornick, Kerry A. Ryan, Aaron M. Scherer, J. Scott Roberts, Raymond G. De Vries, Wendy R. Uhlmann
Abstract
In genomic medicine, the familiarity and inexactness of the term "actionable" can lead to multiple interpretations and mistaken beliefs about realistic treatment options. As part of a larger study focusing on public attitudes toward policies for the return of secondary genomic results, we looked at how members of the lay public interpret the term "medically actionable" in the context of genetic testing. We also surveyed a convenience sample of oncologists as part of a separate study and asked them to define the term "medically actionable." After being provided with a definition of the term, 21 out of 60 (35%) layperson respondents wrote an additional action not specified in the provided definition (12 mentioned "cure" and 9 mentioned environment or behavioral change) and 17 (28%) indicated "something can be done" with no action specified. In contrast, 52 surveyed oncologists did not mention environment, behavioral change, or cure. Based on our findings, we propose that rather than using the term "actionable" alone, providers should also say "what they mean" to reduce miscommunication and confusion that could negatively impact medical decision-making. Lastly, to guide clinicians during patient-provider discussion about genetic test results, we provide examples of phrasing to facilitate clearer communication and understanding of the term "actionable."
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 21 December 2023.
All research outputs
#1,997,025
of 27,870,987 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#52
of 1,356 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,355
of 449,778 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#4
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,870,987 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,356 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 449,778 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
