| Title |
Ethics and Genetics: Examining a Crossroads in Nursing Through a Case Study.
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1188/17.cjon.730-737 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Laura C. Beamer |
| Abstract |
The field of genetics and genomics is rapidly expanding, particularly in oncology. Genetics and genomics can lead to ethical concerns. Oncology nurses must balance the need for evidence-based oncology care with that of ethical care for patients and their family members. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of cancer genetics and ethics and their impact on oncology nurses, patients, and families. A case study of familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) is offered to illustrate the impact of a hereditary cancer syndrome on several generations of a family and ethical issues surrounding cancer genetics. In addition, a brief review of FAP, gene and tissue biobanking, and genome editing is provided. . Genetics, genomics, and pharmaco-genomics are ubiquitous in cancer diagnosis and management. Nurses must be knowledgeable about the ethical issues related to cancer genetics and oncology care to advocate for the needs of patients with cancer. Communication with and education of patients and their families before germline genetic testing may reduce the emergence of ethical dilemmas. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 42 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Researcher | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 19% |
| Unknown | 15 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 33% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 19% |
| Engineering | 2 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 14 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 10 May 2018.
All research outputs
#18,606,163
of 23,047,237 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing
#522
of 686 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#325,927
of 438,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing
#10
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,047,237 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 686 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 438,076 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.