↓ Skip to main content

Universal tumor screening for Lynch syndrome: health-care providers’ perspectives

Overview of attention for article published in Genetics in Medicine, May 2017
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 (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
Title
Universal tumor screening for Lynch syndrome: health-care providers’ perspectives
Published in
Genetics in Medicine, May 2017
DOI 10.1038/gim.2016.150
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yvonne Bombard, Linda Rozmovits, Anne Sorvari, Corinne Daly, June C. Carroll, Erin Kennedy, Linda Rabeneck, Nancy N. Baxter

Abstract

Population-based reflex testing of colorectal tumors can identify individuals with Lynch syndrome (LS), but there is debate regarding the type of patient discretion such a program warrants. We examined health-care providers' views and experiences to inform the design of a reflex-testing program and their perspectives regarding an opt-out option. We interviewed providers managing LS or colorectal cancer patients, including surgeons, genetic counselors, oncologists, primary-care physicians, and gastroenterologists. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically using constant comparison techniques. Providers supported a reflex-testing program because of the current lack of coordinated immunohistochemistry (IHC) testing and underascertainment of LS patients as well as the opportunity to standardize the increasing use of genomic tests in practice. Most supported an opt-out after reflex testing because they felt that IHC is akin to other pathology tests, which are not optional. Some favored an opt-out before testing because of concern for patients experiencing distress, insurance discrimination, or a diagnostic odyssey that may be inconclusive. Providers support a reflex-testing program to improve the identification and management of suspected LS patients. However, how to support meaningful information provision to enable an opt-out without jeopardizing testing uptake and the anticipated public health benefits remains a policy challenge.Genet Med advance online publication 06 October 2016Genetics in Medicine (2016); doi:10.1038/gim.2016.150.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 22%
Student > Master 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 9 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 8%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 11 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 26 November 2016.
All research outputs
#1,203,052
of 19,532,048 outputs
Outputs from Genetics in Medicine
#484
of 2,507 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,597
of 287,917 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetics in Medicine
#8
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,532,048 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,507 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 287,917 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 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.