↓ Skip to main content

The current state of funded NIH grants in implementation science in genomic medicine: a portfolio analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Genetics in Medicine, May 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
38 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
Title
The current state of funded NIH grants in implementation science in genomic medicine: a portfolio analysis
Published in
Genetics in Medicine, May 2019
DOI 10.1038/gim.2017.180
Pubmed ID
Authors

Megan C. Roberts, Mindy Clyne, Amy E Kennedy, David A. Chambers, Muin J Khoury

Abstract

PurposeImplementation science offers methods to evaluate the translation of genomic medicine research into practice. The extent to which the National Institutes of Health (NIH) human genomics grant portfolio includes implementation science is unknown. This brief report's objective is to describe recently funded implementation science studies in genomic medicine in the NIH grant portfolio, and identify remaining gaps.MethodsWe identified investigator-initiated NIH research grants on implementation science in genomic medicine (funding initiated 2012-2016). A codebook was adapted from the literature, three authors coded grants, and descriptive statistics were calculated for each code.ResultsForty-two grants fit the inclusion criteria (~1.75% of investigator-initiated genomics grants). The majority of included grants proposed qualitative and/or quantitative methods with cross-sectional study designs, and described clinical settings and primarily white, non-Hispanic study populations. Most grants were in oncology and examined genetic testing for risk assessment. Finally, grants lacked the use of implementation science frameworks, and most examined uptake of genomic medicine and/or assessed patient-centeredness.ConclusionWe identified large gaps in implementation science studies in genomic medicine in the funded NIH portfolio over the past 5 years. To move the genomics field forward, investigator-initiated research grants should employ rigorous implementation science methods within diverse settings and populations.Genetics in Medicine advance online publication, 26 October 2017; doi:10.1038/gim.2017.180.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 38 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 11%
Professor 5 11%
Student > Master 4 9%
Researcher 3 7%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 16 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 9%
Social Sciences 4 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Psychology 2 5%
Other 8 18%
Unknown 17 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 November 2020.
All research outputs
#1,364,256
of 25,547,904 outputs
Outputs from Genetics in Medicine
#435
of 2,957 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,349
of 363,804 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetics in Medicine
#18
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,547,904 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% 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 done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 363,804 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.