↓ Skip to main content

Challenges and strategies for implementing genomic services in diverse settings: experiences from the Implementing GeNomics In pracTicE (IGNITE) network

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Genomics, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#31 of 797)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
16 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
137 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
Challenges and strategies for implementing genomic services in diverse settings: experiences from the Implementing GeNomics In pracTicE (IGNITE) network
Published in
BMC Medical Genomics, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12920-017-0273-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nina R. Sperber, Janet S. Carpenter, Larisa H. Cavallari, Laura J. Damschroder, Rhonda M. Cooper-DeHoff, Joshua C. Denny, Geoffrey S. Ginsburg, Yue Guan, Carol R. Horowitz, Kenneth D. Levy, Mia A. Levy, Ebony B. Madden, Michael E. Matheny, Toni I. Pollin, Victoria M. Pratt, Marc Rosenman, Corrine I. Voils, Kristen W. Weitzel, Russell A. Wilke, R. Ryanne Wu, Lori A. Orlando

Abstract

To realize potential public health benefits from genetic and genomic innovations, understanding how best to implement the innovations into clinical care is important. The objective of this study was to synthesize data on challenges identified by six diverse projects that are part of a National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI)-funded network focused on implementing genomics into practice and strategies to overcome these challenges. We used a multiple-case study approach with each project considered as a case and qualitative methods to elicit and describe themes related to implementation challenges and strategies. We describe challenges and strategies in an implementation framework and typology to enable consistent definitions and cross-case comparisons. Strategies were linked to challenges based on expert review and shared themes. Three challenges were identified by all six projects, and strategies to address these challenges varied across the projects. One common challenge was to increase the relative priority of integrating genomics within the health system electronic health record (EHR). Four projects used data warehousing techniques to accomplish the integration. The second common challenge was to strengthen clinicians' knowledge and beliefs about genomic medicine. To overcome this challenge, all projects developed educational materials and conducted meetings and outreach focused on genomic education for clinicians. The third challenge was engaging patients in the genomic medicine projects. Strategies to overcome this challenge included use of mass media to spread the word, actively involving patients in implementation (e.g., a patient advisory board), and preparing patients to be active participants in their healthcare decisions. This is the first collaborative evaluation focusing on the description of genomic medicine innovations implemented in multiple real-world clinical settings. Findings suggest that strategies to facilitate integration of genomic data within existing EHRs and educate stakeholders about the value of genomic services are considered important for effective implementation. Future work could build on these findings to evaluate which strategies are optimal under what conditions. This information will be useful for guiding translation of discoveries to clinical care, which, in turn, can provide data to inform continual improvement of genomic innovations and their applications.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 137 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 18%
Student > Master 24 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 15%
Other 12 9%
Professor 10 7%
Other 24 18%
Unknown 22 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 18 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 8%
Computer Science 9 7%
Other 29 21%
Unknown 27 20%

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 13 July 2018.
All research outputs
#898,962
of 15,347,636 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Genomics
#31
of 797 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,901
of 269,854 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Genomics
#1
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,347,636 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 797 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 269,854 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.