↓ Skip to main content

The response to receiving phenotypic and genetic coronary heart disease risk scores and lifestyle advice – a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (56th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The response to receiving phenotypic and genetic coronary heart disease risk scores and lifestyle advice – a qualitative study
Published in
BMC Public Health, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3867-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Guy Shefer, Barbora Silarova, Juliet Usher-Smith, Simon Griffin

Abstract

Individuals routinely receive information about their risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) based on traditional risk factors as part of their primary care. We are also able to calculate individual's risk of CHD based on their genetic information and at present genetic testing for common diseases is available to the public. Due to the limitations in previous studies further understanding is needed about the impact of the risk information on individual's well-being and health-behaviour. We aimed to explore the short term response to receiving different forms of CHD risk information and lifestyle advice for risk reduction. We conducted fourty-one face-to-face interviews and two focus groups across England with participants from the INFORM trial who received a combination of individualised phenotypic and genotypic CHD risk scores and web-based lifestyle advice. Risk scores were presented in different formats, e.g. absolute 10 year risk was presented as a thermometer and expressed as a percentage, natural frequency and 'heart age'. Interviews and focus groups explored participants' understanding and reaction to the risk scores and attempts to change lifestyle during the intervention. We tape-recorded and transcribed the interviews and focus groups and analysed them using thematic analysis. Three main themes were identified: limitations of risk scores to generate concern about CHD risk; the advantages of the 'heart age' format of risk score presentation in communicating a message of sub-optimal lifestyle; and intentions and attempts to make moderate lifestyle changes which were prompted by the web-based lifestyle advice. There are a number of limitations to the use of risk scores to communicate a message about the need for a lifestyle change. Of the formats used, the 'heart age', if noticed, appears to convey the most powerful message about how far from optimal risk an individual person is. An interactive, user friendly, goal setting based lifestyle website can act as a trigger to initiate moderate lifestyle changes, regardless of concerns about risk scores. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17721237 . Registered 12 January 2015.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 12 32%
Student > Master 5 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 6 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 27%
Social Sciences 3 8%
Computer Science 3 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 12 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 01 April 2019.
All research outputs
#7,331,858
of 13,568,727 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#5,746
of 9,356 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,924
of 376,364 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#504
of 830 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,568,727 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,356 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 376,364 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 830 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.