↓ Skip to main content

Barriers and Facilitating Factors for Implementation of Genetic Services: A Public Health Perspective

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 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
Barriers and Facilitating Factors for Implementation of Genetic Services: A Public Health Perspective
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, August 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00195
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martina C. Cornel, Carla G. van El

Abstract

More than 15 years after the publication of the sequence of the human genome, the resulting changes in health care have been modest. At the same time, some promising examples in genetic services become visible, which contribute to the prevention of chronic disease such as cancer. These are discussed to identify barriers and facilitating factors for the implementation of genetic services. Examples from oncogenetics illustrate a high risk of serious disease where prevention is possible, especially in relatives. Some 5% of breast cancers and colorectal cancers are attributable to an inherited predisposition. These cancers occur at a relatively young age. DNA testing of relatives of affected patients may facilitate primary and secondary prevention. Training of non-genetic health care workers and health technology assessment are needed, as is translational research in terms of bringing genomics to health care practice while monitoring and evaluating. Stratified screening programs could include cascade screening and risk assessment based on family history. New roles and responsibilities will emerge. A clear assessment of the values implied is needed allowing to balance the pros and cons of interventions to further the responsible innovation of genetic services.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 71 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Researcher 6 8%
Other 4 6%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 31 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 1%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 33 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 18 January 2018.
All research outputs
#5,828,936
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#1,963
of 11,267 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,912
of 318,501 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#32
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,267 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 318,501 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 101 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.