↓ Skip to main content

The Spillover of Genomic Testing Results in Families: Same Variant, Different Logics

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Health and Social Behavior, March 2017
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)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
Title
The Spillover of Genomic Testing Results in Families: Same Variant, Different Logics
Published in
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, March 2017
DOI 10.1177/0022146517693052
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stefan Timmermans, Tanya Stivers

Abstract

Due to heritability, next-generation genetic tests have the potential to affect family members beyond the patient being tested. Geneticists and genetic counselors, in dialogue with patients and their relatives, will need to establish for whom and in what way genomic testing results matter during the communication of testing results, indicating the spillover of presumed pathological variants. On the basis of video-recorded consultations of the return of exome results in a genetics clinic, we distinguish three different logics deployed to explain the relevance of the findings for the patient, extended family members, and unborn relatives. While geneticists tend to be cautious in interpreting findings for the patient and living relatives, the findings become more deterministic in the context of reproductive decision making. The presentation of results then establishes the causal role of variants and reflects back on disability as a state to be prevented, in the process establishing genetic ties between kin.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 23%
Researcher 6 19%
Student > Master 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Lecturer 2 6%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 7 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 7 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 11 35%
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 04 September 2017.
All research outputs
#4,377,785
of 25,813,008 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Health and Social Behavior
#420
of 1,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,143
of 325,591 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Health and Social Behavior
#6
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,813,008 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 1,036 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 325,591 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 14 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 57% of its contemporaries.