| Title |
Development of FOCUS‐GC: Framework for Outcomes of Clinical Communication Services in Genetic Counseling
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Genetic Counseling, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10897-017-0145-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Deborah Cragun, Heather Zierhut |
| Abstract |
Conceptual frameworks bring together existing theories and models in order to identify, consolidate, and fill in gaps between theory, practice, and evidence. Given the vast number of possible outcomes that could be studied in genetic counseling, a framework for organizing outcomes and postulating relationships between communication services and genetic counseling outcomes was sought. Through an iterative approach involving literature review, thematic analysis, and consolidation, outcomes and processes were categorized to create and define components of a conceptual framework. The final product, "Framework for Outcomes of Clinical commUnication Services" (FOCUS) contains the following domains: communication strategy; communication process measures; patient care experience, patient changes, patient health; and family changes. A website was created to allow easier access and ongoing modifications to the framework. In addition, a step-by-step guide and two examples were created to show flexibility in how the framework can be used. FOCUS may help in conceptualizing, organizing and summarizing outcomes research related to risk communication and counseling in genetic service delivery as well as other healthcare settings. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 States | 10 | 45% |
| Canada | 2 | 9% |
| Central African Republic | 1 | 5% |
| Côte d'Ivoire | 1 | 5% |
| South Africa | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 7 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 59% |
| Scientists | 6 | 27% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 72 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 14% |
| Researcher | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 10% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 13% |
| Unknown | 21 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 9 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 10% |
| Psychology | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Unknown | 26 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 09 December 2020.
All research outputs
#2,147,681
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#84
of 1,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,430
of 324,846 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#3
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,160 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 324,846 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.