| Title |
Using Genetic Technologies To Reduce, Rather Than Widen, Health Disparities
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health Affairs, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1476 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Caren E Smith, Stephanie M Fullerton, Keith A Dookeran, Heather Hampel, Adrienne Tin, Nisa M Maruthur, Jonathan C Schisler, Jeffrey A Henderson, Katherine L Tucker, José M Ordovás |
| Abstract |
Evidence shows that both biological and nonbiological factors contribute to health disparities. Genetics, in particular, plays a part in how common diseases manifest themselves. Today, unprecedented advances in genetically based diagnoses and treatments provide opportunities for personalized medicine. However, disadvantaged groups may lack access to these advances, and treatments based on research on non-Hispanic whites might not be generalizable to members of minority groups. Unless genetic technologies become universally accessible, existing disparities could be widened. Addressing this issue will require integrated strategies, including expanding genetic research, improving genetic literacy, and enhancing access to genetic technologies among minority populations in a way that avoids harms such as stigmatization. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 22 | 59% |
| Chile | 1 | 3% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 11 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 21 | 57% |
| Scientists | 8 | 22% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 19% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 151 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 148 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 10% |
| Other | 14 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 7% |
| Other | 33 | 22% |
| Unknown | 41 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 21% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 21 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 6% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 24 | 16% |
| Unknown | 47 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 99. 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 09 February 2023.
All research outputs
#427,026
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Health Affairs
#977
of 6,505 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,609
of 378,559 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Affairs
#40
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,505 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 68.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 378,559 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 96 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.