↓ Skip to main content

Psychosocial issues of a population approach to high genetic risk identification: Behavioural, emotional and informed choice issues

Overview of attention for article published in The Breast, November 2017
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 (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
Title
Psychosocial issues of a population approach to high genetic risk identification: Behavioural, emotional and informed choice issues
Published in
The Breast, November 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.breast.2017.11.008
Pubmed ID
Authors

David P. French, Anthony Howell, D. Gareth Evans

Abstract

To allow women at high genetic risk of breast cancer to benefit from prevention or early prevention strategies, a screening programme is required to identify them. The present review considers the likelihood of key outcomes that would arise from such a programme, in relation to behavioural, emotional and informed choice outcomes. The likelihood of outcomes in each category is considered in relation to the limited direct evidence and relevant indirect evidence, given the dearth of studies that have directly studied the effects of communication of personal genetic risk of breast cancer. Overall, there is promise that such a programme would have several behavioural benefits, such as good uptake of increased screening in women at high risk but little effect on screening in women at low risk. The available evidence suggests that major adverse effects on emotional outcomes are unlikely. There is very limited evidence in this developing area on the extent to which decisions of women offered breast cancer risk estimation will be fully informed choices. Recommendations are made for increasing benefits and reducing harms of population-wide breast cancer risk estimation in light of current evidence. Key research gaps are identified.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 17%
Unspecified 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Professor 2 7%
Other 8 27%
Unknown 6 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 30%
Psychology 5 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 10%
Unspecified 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 7 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 August 2018.
All research outputs
#3,587,744
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from The Breast
#224
of 1,585 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,711
of 445,582 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Breast
#6
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,585 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. 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 445,582 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.