↓ Skip to main content

Delivery Of Cascade Screening For Hereditary Conditions: A Scoping Review Of The Literature

Overview of attention for article published in Health Affairs, May 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 (93rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
51 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
117 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
Title
Delivery Of Cascade Screening For Hereditary Conditions: A Scoping Review Of The Literature
Published in
Health Affairs, May 2018
DOI 10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1630
Pubmed ID
Authors

Megan C Roberts, W David Dotson, Christopher S DeVore, Erica M Bednar, Deborah J Bowen, Theodore G Ganiats, Ridgely Fisk Green, Georgia M Hurst, Alisdair R Philp, Charité N Ricker, Amy C Sturm, Angela M Trepanier, Janet L Williams, Heather A Zierhut, Katherine A Wilemon, Heather Hampel

Abstract

Cascade screening is the process of contacting relatives of people who have been diagnosed with certain hereditary conditions. Its purpose is to identify, inform, and manage those who are also at risk. We conducted a scoping review to obtain a broad overview of cascade screening interventions, facilitators and barriers to their use, relevant policy considerations, and future research needs. We searched for relevant peer-reviewed literature in the period 1990-2017 and reviewed 122 studies. Finally, we described 45 statutes and regulations related to the use and release of genetic information across the fifty states. We sought standardized best practices for optimizing cascade screening across various geographic and policy contexts, but we found none. Studies in which trained providers contacted relatives directly, rather than through probands (index patients), showed greater cascade screening uptake; however, policies in some states might limit this approach. Major barriers to cascade screening delivery include suboptimal communication between the proband and family and geographic barriers to obtaining genetic services. Few US studies examined interventions for cascade screening or used rigorous study designs such as randomized controlled trials. Moving forward, there remains an urgent need to conduct rigorous intervention studies on cascade screening in diverse US populations, while accounting for state policy considerations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 51 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 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 81 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 14%
Researcher 10 12%
Student > Postgraduate 9 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 23 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 15%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Psychology 4 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 29 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. 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 31 January 2022.
All research outputs
#940,321
of 24,792,414 outputs
Outputs from Health Affairs
#1,902
of 6,440 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,079
of 331,688 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Affairs
#46
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,792,414 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 6,440 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 68.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 331,688 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.