↓ Skip to main content

Factors Influencing Clinical Follow-Up for Individuals with a Personal History of Breast and/or Ovarian Cancer and Previous Uninformative BRCA1 and BRCA2 Testing

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Genetic Counseling, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (59th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
Title
Factors Influencing Clinical Follow-Up for Individuals with a Personal History of Breast and/or Ovarian Cancer and Previous Uninformative BRCA1 and BRCA2 Testing
Published in
Journal of Genetic Counseling, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10897-018-0241-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah E. Chadwell, Hua He, Sara Knapke, Jaime Lewis, Rebecca Sisson, Jennifer Hopper

Abstract

Genetic testing for inherited cancer risk has recently improved through the advent of multi-gene panels and the addition of deletion and duplication analysis of the BRCA genes. The primary aim of this study was to determine which factors influence the intent of individuals with a personal history of breast and/or ovarian cancer and negative or uncertain BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing to return to a hereditary cancer program for additional genetic risk assessment, counseling, and testing. Surveys were sent to 1197 individuals and 257 were returned. Of those participants who were planning to return to clinic, most cited having family members who could benefit from the test result as the primary motivation to return. Many participants who were not planning to return to clinic cited the cost of testing as a barrier to return. Cost of testing and concerns about insurance coverage were the most commonly cited barriers for the group of participants who were undecided about returning to clinic. Results from this study may be used to guide re-contact efforts by clinicians to increase patient uptake to return to clinic for up-to-date genetic risk assessment, counseling, and testing.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 3 23%
Student > Master 2 15%
Other 2 15%
Student > Bachelor 2 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 15%
Other 2 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 31%
Unspecified 3 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 15%
Social Sciences 1 8%
Other 1 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 10 April 2018.
All research outputs
#6,585,210
of 13,020,564 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#298
of 691 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,708
of 271,017 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#12
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,020,564 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 691 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 271,017 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 59% 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 is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.