| Title |
Guidance for patients considering direct-to-consumer genetic testing and health professionals involved in their care: development of a practical decision tool
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Family Practice, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1093/fampra/cmt087 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Leigh Jackson, Lesley Goldsmith, Heather Skirton |
| Abstract |
Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests are available online, but there is little practical guidance for health professionals and consumers concerning their use. Work to produce such guidance was initially informed by three systematic reviews assessing the evidence on views and experiences of users and health professionals and policies of professional and bioethics organizations. The evidence suggested that consumers' motivations include general curiosity, improving their general health, ascertaining the risk of a particular condition or planning for future children. However, health professionals and bioethics organizations expressed concerns about potential harms resulting from these tests. Using this evidence, we constructed a list of topics to be included in proposed guidelines. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Sweden | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 65 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 18 | 27% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 15% |
| Unknown | 10 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 27% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 14 | 21% |
| Unknown | 13 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 01 February 2014.
All research outputs
#18,361,534
of 22,741,406 outputs
Outputs from Family Practice
#1,812
of 2,047 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#229,909
of 307,471 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Family Practice
#15
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,741,406 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,047 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 307,471 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.