↓ Skip to main content

Five‐Year Bibliometric Review of Genomic Nursing Science Research

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Nursing Scholarship, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
Title
Five‐Year Bibliometric Review of Genomic Nursing Science Research
Published in
Journal of Nursing Scholarship, February 2016
DOI 10.1111/jnu.12196
Pubmed ID
Authors

Janet K Williams, Toni Tripp-Reimer, Sandra Daack-Hirsch, Jennifer DeBerg

Abstract

This bibliometric review profiles the focus, dissemination, and impact of genomic nursing science articles from 2010 to 2014. Data-based genomic nursing articles by nursing authors and articles by non-nurse principal investigators funded by the National Institute of Nursing Research were categorized into the Genomic Nursing Science Blueprint nursing areas. Bibliometric content analysis was used. A total of 197 articles met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 60.3% were on biologic plausibility, 12.1% on client self-management, 11.1% on decision making or decision support, 8.1% on family, and 4.0% on communication, with the remaining 4.0% of articles focused on other topics. Few (11.6%) addressed healthcare disparities in the study purpose. Thirty-four references (17.2%) were cited 10 or more times. Research-based genomic nursing science articles are in the discovery phase of inquiry. All topics were investigated in more than one country. Healthcare disparities were addressed in few studies. Research findings from interdisciplinary teams were disseminated beyond nursing audiences, with findings addressing biologic discovery, decision making or support, and family being cited most frequently. Gaps in the reviewed articles included cross-cutting themes, ethics, and clinical utility. Interdisciplinary research is needed to document clinical and system outcomes of genomic nursing science implementation in health care. Although the review identifies areas that are encountered in clinical practice, relevance to practice will depend on evaluation of findings and subsequent development of clinical guidelines.

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 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 64 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Lecturer 4 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 6%
Professor 4 6%
Other 15 23%
Unknown 23 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 17 27%
Social Sciences 8 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 9%
Environmental Science 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 21 33%