| Title |
Anticipating the Ethical Challenges of Psychiatric Genetic Testing
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Psychiatry Reports, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11920-017-0790-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Paul S. Appelbaum, Shawna Benston |
| Abstract |
Genetic testing for mental illness is likely to become increasingly prevalent as the science behind it is refined. This article identifies anticipated ethical challenges for patients, psychiatrists, and genetic counselors and makes recommendations for addressing them. Many of the ethical challenges of psychiatric genetic testing are likely to stem from failures to comprehend the nature and implications of test results. Recent studies have identified gaps in the knowledge base of psychiatrists and genetic counselors, which limit their abilities to provide patients with appropriate education. A small number of studies have demonstrated the value of counseling in empowering patients to deal with relevant genetic information. Psychiatrists and other health professionals must be able to assist patients and families in making informed decisions about genetic testing and interpreting test results. Filling their knowledge gaps on these issues will be a critical step towards meeting these responsibilities. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 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 Kingdom | 5 | 25% |
| United States | 2 | 10% |
| Ethiopia | 1 | 5% |
| Colombia | 1 | 5% |
| Ireland | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 10 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 55% |
| Scientists | 6 | 30% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 15% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 49 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 14% |
| Professor | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 12% |
| Other | 8 | 16% |
| Unknown | 5 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 27% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 16% |
| Psychology | 5 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Unknown | 9 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 10 December 2017.
All research outputs
#3,375,401
of 25,260,058 outputs
Outputs from Current Psychiatry Reports
#389
of 1,275 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,115
of 319,841 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Psychiatry Reports
#13
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,260,058 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,275 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 319,841 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 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 60% of its contemporaries.