| Title |
Community Health Workers: An Untapped Resource to Promote Genomic Literacy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Health Communication, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1080/10810730.2016.1196272 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Caitlin G. Allen, Colleen M. McBride, Hector G. Balcazar, Kim A. Kaphingst |
| Abstract |
Poor understanding of gene-environment contributors to health conditions can lead the public to misinterpretations that overemphasize genetics as determinants of health. The present commentary calls for engaging the national community health worker (CHW) workforce to use community elicitation methods such as mental models approaches as a means to enhance the public's literacy regarding genetic and environmental or genomic contributions to health. We discuss three needs related to genomic literacy and suggest how CHWs are uniquely positioned to address these needs among diverse target audiences. We conclude by offering directions for the future of CHWs working to build genomic literacy. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 10% |
| Researcher | 3 | 10% |
| Professor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 17% |
| Unknown | 9 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 23% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 7% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 9 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 15 October 2017.
All research outputs
#12,966,331
of 22,889,074 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Health Communication
#898
of 1,317 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,193
of 321,669 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Health Communication
#17
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,889,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,317 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 321,669 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.