↓ Skip to main content

Sociodemographic, psychosocial and clinical factors associated with uptake of genetic counselling for hereditary cancer: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Genetics, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
91 Mendeley
Title
Sociodemographic, psychosocial and clinical factors associated with uptake of genetic counselling for hereditary cancer: a systematic review
Published in
Clinical Genetics, October 2016
DOI 10.1111/cge.12868
Pubmed ID
Authors

A.M. Willis, S.K. Smith, B. Meiser, M.L. Ballinger, D.M. Thomas, M.‐A. Young

Abstract

Evidence suggests that a significant proportion of individuals referred to cancer genetic counselling (GC) do not attend, and thus may not be engaged in adequate cancer risk management. We aimed to review the literature to better understand barriers to accessing GC and how they may be overcome. We conducted a systematic literature search for articles examining factors influencing cancer GC uptake as well as motivators and barriers to GC attendance. Factors were categorised as sociodemographic, psychosocial or clinical. The literature search identified 1,413 citations, 35 of which met the inclusion criteria. GC uptake ranged from 19% to 88%. With the exceptions of education level, socioeconomic status, cancer-specific distress, personal cancer diagnosis and actual and perceived risk of cancer, support was lacking for most sociodemographic, clinical and psychosocial factors as predictors of GC uptake. Cost and logistical barriers, emotional concerns, family concerns and low perceived personal relevance were reported as important considerations for those declining GC. We conclude that there is poor understanding of GC and a lack of decision support among those referred to GC. Research into ways of providing education and support to referred individuals will be important as the scope and availability of genetic counselling and testing broaden.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 91 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 15%
Researcher 12 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Other 5 5%
Other 15 16%
Unknown 24 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 20%
Psychology 13 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 9%
Social Sciences 6 7%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 25 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 19 February 2018.
All research outputs
#4,079,657
of 24,417,958 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Genetics
#241
of 2,549 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,865
of 320,184 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Genetics
#10
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,417,958 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,549 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 320,184 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 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 72% of its contemporaries.