↓ Skip to main content

Developing a common framework for evaluating the implementation of genomic medicine interventions in clinical care: the IGNITE Network’s Common Measures Working Group

Overview of attention for article published in Genetics in Medicine, September 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 (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
Title
Developing a common framework for evaluating the implementation of genomic medicine interventions in clinical care: the IGNITE Network’s Common Measures Working Group
Published in
Genetics in Medicine, September 2017
DOI 10.1038/gim.2017.144
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lori A Orlando, Nina R Sperber, Corrine Voils, Marshall Nichols, Rachel A Myers, R Ryanne Wu, Tejinder Rakhra-Burris, Kenneth D Levy, Mia Levy, Toni I Pollin, Yue Guan, Carol R Horowitz, Michelle Ramos, Stephen E Kimmel, Caitrin W McDonough, Ebony B Madden, Laura J Damschroder

Abstract

PurposeImplementation research provides a structure for evaluating the clinical integration of genomic medicine interventions. This paper describes the Implementing Genomics in Practice (IGNITE) Network's efforts to promote (i) a broader understanding of genomic medicine implementation research and (ii) the sharing of knowledge generated in the network.MethodsTo facilitate this goal, the IGNITE Network Common Measures Working Group (CMG) members adopted the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to guide its approach to identifying constructs and measures relevant to evaluating genomic medicine as a whole, standardizing data collection across projects, and combining data in a centralized resource for cross-network analyses.ResultsCMG identified 10 high-priority CFIR constructs as important for genomic medicine. Of those, eight did not have standardized measurement instruments. Therefore, we developed four survey tools to address this gap. In addition, we identified seven high-priority constructs related to patients, families, and communities that did not map to CFIR constructs. Both sets of constructs were combined to create a draft genomic medicine implementation model.ConclusionWe developed processes to identify constructs deemed valuable for genomic medicine implementation and codified them in a model. These resources are freely available to facilitate knowledge generation and sharing across the field.GENETICS in MEDICINE advance online publication, 14 September 2017; doi:10.1038/gim.2017.144.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 24%
Other 8 14%
Student > Master 5 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 15 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 14%
Social Sciences 8 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 7%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 13 22%
Unknown 13 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 13 June 2019.
All research outputs
#4,732,985
of 25,556,408 outputs
Outputs from Genetics in Medicine
#1,389
of 2,957 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,428
of 323,894 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetics in Medicine
#39
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,556,408 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,957 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 323,894 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.