↓ Skip to main content

Using a genetic test result in the care of family members: how does the duty of confidentiality apply?

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Human Genetics, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
62 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 Mendeley
Title
Using a genetic test result in the care of family members: how does the duty of confidentiality apply?
Published in
European Journal of Human Genetics, April 2018
DOI 10.1038/s41431-018-0138-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Parker, Anneke Lucassen

Abstract

The use of genetic and genomic testing is becoming more widespread in healthcare and more inherited explanations for family history of diseases or conditions are being uncovered. Currently, relevant genetic information is not always used in the care of family members who might benefit from it, because of health professionals' fears of inappropriately breaching another family member's confidence. Such examples are likely to increase as testing possibilities expand. Here we present the case for use of familial information in the care and treatment of family members. We argue that whilst a clinical diagnosis in person A is confidential, the discovery of a familial factor that led to this diagnosis should be available for use in depersonalised form by health professionals to inform the testing and clinical care of other family members. The possibility of such use should be made clear in clinical practice at the time of initial testing, but should not require consent from the person in whom the familial factor was first identified. We call for further debate on these questions in the wake of high profile non-disclosure of genetic information cases, and forthcoming Data Protection legislation changes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 62 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 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 > Master 11 15%
Researcher 8 11%
Other 6 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 31 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 13%
Social Sciences 6 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Environmental Science 2 3%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 32 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 48. 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 28 November 2022.
All research outputs
#848,286
of 24,821,035 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Human Genetics
#101
of 3,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,124
of 331,946 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Human Genetics
#2
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,821,035 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,616 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 331,946 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.