| Title |
Socio-Genomics and Structural Competency
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11673-016-9716-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dalton Conley, Dolores Malaspina |
| Abstract |
Adverse developmental exposures and pathologies of the social environment make vastly greater contributions to the leading health burdens in society than currently known genotypic information. Yet, while patients now commonly bring information on single alleles to the attention of their healthcare team, the former conditions are only rarely considered with respect to future health outcomes. This manuscript aims to integrate social environmental influences in genetic predictive models of disease risk. Healthcare providers must be educated to better understand genetic risks for complex diseases and the specific health consequences of societal adversities, to facilitate patient education, disease prevention, and the optimal care in order to achieve positive health outcomes for those with early trauma or other social disadvantage. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 | 1 | 50% |
| France | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Greece | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 36 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 11% |
| Professor | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 24% |
| Unknown | 7 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 24% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 16% |
| Psychology | 3 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 16% |
| Unknown | 9 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 September 2017.
All research outputs
#18,462,696
of 22,876,619 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#522
of 601 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#254,747
of 339,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#8
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,876,619 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 601 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 339,120 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.