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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
| Title |
Why Does the Shift from "Personalized Medicine" to "Precision Health" and "Wellness Genomics" Matter?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The AMA Journal of Ethic, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1001/amajethics.2018.881 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Eric T Juengst, Michelle L McGowan |
| Abstract |
Efforts to conceptualize the application of human genomics to health care have displayed an evolving set of translational research goals. Under personalized genomic medicine, the aim was to individualize treatment and empower patients to take more responsibility for their own health. With the rise of interest in expert interpretation of multifactorial risk stratification, emphasis shifted to giving clinicians better tools and more authority to use them under the rubric of precision medicine. The statistical nature of risk stratification, in turn, led to the movement's importing public health goals and expanding its scope to precision prevention at the population level. Today, the confluence of precision medicine and precision prevention in precision health is leading to wellness genomics aimed at achieving goals beyond health care entirely. Each of these reorientations suggests important ethical questions for the medical community. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 48 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 16 | 33% |
| Canada | 4 | 8% |
| Colombia | 1 | 2% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| South Africa | 1 | 2% |
| Maldives | 1 | 2% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 19 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 33 | 69% |
| Scientists | 10 | 21% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 63 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 17% |
| Unknown | 15 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 20 | 32% |
| Unknown | 20 | 32% |