↓ Skip to main content

Consumer awareness and attitudes about insurance discrimination post enactment of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

Overview of attention for article published in Familial Cancer, August 2012
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 (#30 of 349)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 Mendeley
Title
Consumer awareness and attitudes about insurance discrimination post enactment of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act
Published in
Familial Cancer, August 2012
DOI 10.1007/s10689-012-9564-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dawn C. Allain, Sue Friedman, Leigha Senter

Abstract

To examine the awareness and attitudes about the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act in individuals who made contact with a Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome advocacy group. This is a descriptive study of individuals (n = 1,699) who were invited via email and advertisements to complete an online questionnaire available from August 2009 through December 2010. Response distributions of relevant subgroups were compared using cross tabulation and Chi-squared tests were used. The majority of respondents (69.2 %) had undergone genetic testing (n = 1,156) and 30.2 % had not. Of those who did not undergo genetic testing, the most common reason given for declining testing was cost (28.8 %), followed by concerns about insurance discrimination (19.5 %). More than half (60.5 %) were worried about health insurance discrimination when they first considered genetic testing and 28.6 % were worried about employment discrimination. Slightly more individuals were worried about health insurance discrimination if they had no prior knowledge of GINA. While "cost" was cited most frequently as the reason not to test, "fear of insurance discrimination" was the second most common reason. Knowledge of GINA among consumers is still limited and public education may help promote reduction in fear.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 3%
United States 2 3%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 57 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 16%
Student > Master 10 16%
Researcher 9 15%
Other 8 13%
Other 13 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 32%
Social Sciences 7 11%
Unspecified 7 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 8%
Psychology 5 8%
Other 18 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 May 2013.
All research outputs
#1,603,030
of 12,340,143 outputs
Outputs from Familial Cancer
#30
of 349 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,458
of 143,821 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Familial Cancer
#4
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,340,143 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 349 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 143,821 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.