↓ Skip to main content

Patient perspectives following pharmacogenomics results disclosure in an integrated health system

Overview of attention for article published in Pharmacogenomics, March 2018
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 (#38 of 873)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 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
Patient perspectives following pharmacogenomics results disclosure in an integrated health system
Published in
Pharmacogenomics, March 2018
DOI 10.2217/pgs-2017-0191
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amy A Lemke, Peter J Hulick, Dyson T Wake, Chi Wang, Annette W Sereika, Kristen Dilzell Yu, Nicole S Glaser, Henry M Dunnenberger

Abstract

To assess patient perceptions and utilization of pharmacogenomics (PGx) testing in an integrated community health system. Fifty-seven patients completed an online survey assessing their experiences with PGx testing offered through two methods: a designated PGx clinic or direct access in-home testing. The majority of participants perceived PGx testing as helpful in their healthcare and reported understanding their results. Some had concerns about privacy and discrimination; most lacked familiarity with the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. There were no significant differences in views between participants tested through either model. Participants reported value in both methods of PGx testing. Patient experiences, understanding and result utilization will play an important role in informing future development and implementation of PGx programs.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 29%
Student > Master 3 21%
Researcher 3 21%
Professor 1 7%
Unknown 3 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 21%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 14%
Social Sciences 2 14%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 24 July 2018.
All research outputs
#1,611,774
of 14,584,463 outputs
Outputs from Pharmacogenomics
#38
of 873 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,996
of 273,815 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pharmacogenomics
#1
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,584,463 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 873 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 273,815 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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.