↓ Skip to main content

Genetics in palliative oncology: a missing agenda? A review of the literature and future directions

Overview of attention for article published in Supportive Care in Cancer, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 Mendeley
Title
Genetics in palliative oncology: a missing agenda? A review of the literature and future directions
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00520-017-4017-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

April Morrow, Chris Jacobs, Megan Best, Sian Greening, Kathy Tucker

Abstract

In the palliative oncology setting, genetic assessment may not impact on the patient's management but can be of vital importance to their surviving relatives. Despite care of the family being central to the ethos of palliative care, little is known about how hereditary aspects of cancer are addressed in this setting. This review aims to examine current practices, identify practice barriers and determine the genetic information and support needs of patients, family members and health providers. Key databases were systematically searched to identify both quantitative and qualitative studies that addressed these aims. Data was extracted and coded using thematic analysis. Eight studies were included for review. Suboptimal genetic practices were identified, with lack of knowledge and poor confidence amongst providers reported as barriers in both qualitative and quantitative studies. Providers expressed concern about the emotional impact of initiating these discussions late in the disease trajectory; however, qualitative interviews amongst palliative patients suggested there may be emotional benefits. All lines of evidence suggest that genetics is currently missing from the palliative agenda, signifying lost opportunities for mutation detection, genetic counselling and appropriate risk management for surviving relatives. There is an urgent need for interventions to improve provider knowledge and awareness of genetic referral pathways and for research into the genetic information and support needs of palliative care patients.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 40%
Unspecified 3 30%
Student > Master 2 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 3 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 20%
Psychology 2 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 10%
Social Sciences 1 10%
Other 1 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 05 January 2019.
All research outputs
#3,529,630
of 13,183,063 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#858
of 2,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,033
of 384,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#61
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,183,063 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,587 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 384,326 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 99 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.