↓ Skip to main content

Clinical delivery of pharmacogenetic testing services: a proposed partnership between genetic counselors and pharmacists

Overview of attention for article published in Pharmacogenomics, June 2013
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 (77th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 Mendeley
Title
Clinical delivery of pharmacogenetic testing services: a proposed partnership between genetic counselors and pharmacists
Published in
Pharmacogenomics, June 2013
DOI 10.2217/pgs.13.76
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachel Mills, Susanne B Haga

Abstract

One of the basic questions in the early uses of pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing revolves around the clinical delivery of testing. Because multiple health professionals may play a role in the delivery of PGx testing, various clinical delivery models have begun to be studied. We propose that a partnership between genetic counselors and pharmacists can assist clinicians in the delivery of comprehensive PGx services. Based on their expert knowledge of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, pharmacists can facilitate the appropriate application of PGx test results to adjust medication use as warranted and act as a liaison to the healthcare team recommending changes in medication based on test results and patient input. Genetic counselors are well-trained in genetics as well as risk communication and counseling methodology, but have limited knowledge of pharmaceuticals. The complementary knowledge and skill set supports the partnership between genetic counselors and pharmacists to provide effective PGx testing services.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
Unknown 91 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 16%
Student > Bachelor 15 16%
Researcher 13 14%
Unspecified 6 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 6%
Other 18 19%
Unknown 21 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 24 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Chemistry 3 3%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 25 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 20 October 2013.
All research outputs
#5,370,559
of 22,711,645 outputs
Outputs from Pharmacogenomics
#202
of 1,098 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,254
of 194,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pharmacogenomics
#3
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,711,645 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,098 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 194,187 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.