↓ Skip to main content

Approaching confidentiality at a familial level in genomic medicine: a focus group study with healthcare professionals

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
30 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
83 Mendeley
Title
Approaching confidentiality at a familial level in genomic medicine: a focus group study with healthcare professionals
Published in
BMJ Open, February 2017
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012443
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sandi Dheensa, Angela Fenwick, Anneke Lucassen

Abstract

Clinical genetics guidelines from 2011 conceptualise genetic information as confidential to families, not individuals. The normative consequence of this is that the family's interest is the primary consideration and genetic information is shared unless there are good reasons not to do so. We investigated healthcare professionals' (HCPs') views about, and reasoning around, individual and familial approaches to confidentiality and how such views influenced their practice. 16 focus groups with 80 HCPs working in/with clinical genetics services were analysed, drawing on grounded theory. Participants raised seven problems with, and arguments against, going beyond the individual approach to confidentiality. These problems fell into two overlapping categories: 'relationships' and 'structures'. Most participants had never considered ways to-or thought it was impossible to-treat familial genetic information and personal information differently. They worried that putting the familial approach into practice could disrupt family dynamics and erode patient trust in the health service. They also thought they had insufficient resources to share information and feared that sharing might change the standard of care and make them more vulnerable to liability. A familial approach to confidentiality has not been accepted or adopted as a standard, but wider research suggests that some of the problems HCPs perceived are surmountable and sharing in the interest of the family can be achieved. However, further research is needed to explore how personal and familial genetic information can be separated in practice. Our findings are relevant to HCPs across health services who are starting to use genome tests as part of their routine investigations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 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 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 83 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 11%
Other 8 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Researcher 7 8%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 22 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 16%
Social Sciences 7 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 8%
Psychology 5 6%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 25 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 12 February 2022.
All research outputs
#1,965,708
of 25,517,918 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#3,778
of 25,732 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,286
of 425,761 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#99
of 462 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,517,918 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 25,732 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 425,761 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 462 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.