↓ Skip to main content

Using needs-based frameworks for evaluating new technologies: An application to genetic tests

Overview of attention for article published in Health Policy, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
Title
Using needs-based frameworks for evaluating new technologies: An application to genetic tests
Published in
Health Policy, November 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.11.006
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wolf H. Rogowski, Sebastian Schleidgen

Abstract

Given the multitude of newly available genetic tests in the face of limited healthcare budgets, the European Society of Human Genetics assessed how genetic services can be prioritized fairly. Using (health) benefit maximizing frameworks for this purpose has been criticized on the grounds that rather than maximization, fairness requires meeting claims (e.g. based on medical need) equitably. This study develops a prioritization score for genetic tests to facilitate equitable allocation based on need-based claims. It includes attributes representing health need associated with hereditary conditions (severity and progression), a genetic service's suitability to alleviate need (evidence of benefit and likelihood of positive result) and costs to meet the needs. A case study for measuring the attributes is provided and a suggestion is made how need-based claims can be quantified in a priority function. Attribute weights can be informed by data from discrete-choice experiments. Further work is needed to measure the attributes across the multitude of genetic tests and to determine appropriate weights. The priority score is most likely to be considered acceptable if developed within a decision process which meets criteria of procedural fairness and if the priority score is interpreted as "strength of recommendation" rather than a fixed cut-off value.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 4%
Canada 1 4%
Unknown 23 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 24%
Researcher 6 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 7 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 16%
Social Sciences 3 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 8%
Other 4 16%
Unknown 7 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 08 January 2020.
All research outputs
#7,356,550
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Health Policy
#1,253
of 2,828 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,157
of 268,534 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Policy
#22
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,828 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 268,534 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.