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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Genetic discrimination and life insurance: a systematic review of the evidence
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1741-7015-11-25 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yann Joly, Ida Ngueng Feze, Jacques Simard |
| Abstract |
Since the late 1980s, genetic discrimination has remained one of the major concerns associated with genetic research and clinical genetics. Europe has adopted a plethora of laws and policies, both at the regional and national levels, to prevent insurers from having access to genetic information for underwriting. Legislators from the United States and the United Kingdom have also felt compelled to adopt protective measures specifically addressing genetics and insurance. But does the available evidence really confirm the popular apprehension about genetic discrimination and the subsequent genetic exceptionalism? |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 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 | 8 | 32% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 16% |
| Canada | 2 | 8% |
| Ireland | 1 | 4% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 4% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 4% |
| Australia | 1 | 4% |
| Germany | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 6 | 24% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 16 | 64% |
| Scientists | 5 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 12% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 169 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 164 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 39 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 33 | 20% |
| Other | 16 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 9% |
| Researcher | 11 | 7% |
| Other | 23 | 14% |
| Unknown | 31 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 20% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 23 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 17 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 7% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 8 | 5% |
| Other | 43 | 25% |
| Unknown | 34 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 01 March 2023.
All research outputs
#1,398,360
of 24,792,414 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#977
of 3,843 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,960
of 293,467 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#29
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,792,414 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,843 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 293,467 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 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 64% of its contemporaries.