↓ Skip to main content

Opening the “black box” of informed consent appointments for genome sequencing: a multisite observational study

Overview of attention for article published in Genetics in Medicine, October 2018
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)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
49 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
Title
Opening the “black box” of informed consent appointments for genome sequencing: a multisite observational study
Published in
Genetics in Medicine, October 2018
DOI 10.1038/s41436-018-0310-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Saskia C. Sanderson, Celine Lewis, Christine Patch, Melissa Hill, Maria Bitner-Glindzicz, Lyn S. Chitty

Abstract

Little is known about how health-care professionals communicate with patients about consenting to genome sequencing. We therefore examined what topics health-care professionals covered and what questions patients asked during consent conversations. Twenty-one genome sequencing consent appointments were audio recorded and analyzed. Participants were 35 individuals being invited to participate in the 100,000 Genomes Project (14 participants with rare diseases, 21 relatives), and 10 health-care professionals ("consenters"). Two-thirds of participants' questions were substantive (e.g., genetics and inheritance); one-third administrative (e.g., filling in the consent form). Consenters usually (19/21) emphasized participant choice about secondary findings, but less often (13/21) emphasized the uncertainty about associated disease risks. Consenters primarily used passive statements and closed-ended, rather than open-ended, questions to invite participants' questions and concerns. In two appointments, one parent expressed negative or uncertain views about secondary findings, but after discussion with the other parent opted to receive them. Health-care professionals need to be prepared to answer patients' questions about genetics to facilitate genome sequencing consent. Health-care professionals' education also needs to address how to effectively listen and elicit each patient's questions and views, and how to discuss uncertainty around the disease risks associated with secondary findings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 49 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 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 12%
Researcher 6 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Student > Master 5 9%
Unspecified 4 7%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 21 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 9%
Unspecified 4 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 24 41%
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 23 May 2021.
All research outputs
#1,336,449
of 25,396,120 outputs
Outputs from Genetics in Medicine
#425
of 2,947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,422
of 354,611 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetics in Medicine
#15
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,396,120 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 2,947 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 354,611 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 87 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.