↓ Skip to main content

Impact of a genetic counseling requirement prior to genetic testing

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
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.
Title
Impact of a genetic counseling requirement prior to genetic testing
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-2957-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

David D. Stenehjem, Trang Au, Amy M. Sainski, Hillevi Bauer, Krystal Brown, Johnathan Lancaster, Vanessa Stevens, Diana I. Brixner

Abstract

Genetic counseling by a Genetic Counselor (GC) is a requirement prior to genetic testing for cancer susceptibility genes (GC-mandate policy) for some insurers. This study evaluated the impact of this policy from the patient perspective. Surveys were sent to individuals for whom their insurer ordered genetic testing for the cancer susceptibility genes BCRA1 and BRCA2 over a 1 year time period that spanned the introduction of a GC-mandate policy. Responses were assessed by time period (before/after policy introduction) and genetic test completion. The surveys were completed by 1247/4950 (25.7%) eligible individuals. After policy introduction, there was no change in the proportion of respondents who completed genetic testing (p = 0.13) or had a mutation (p = 0.55). Overall decisional conflict (uncertainty or feeling uninformed) around genetic testing did not change after policy introduction (p = 0.16), but was significantly higher among respondents who did not complete genetic testing (p < 0.01). Although a larger proportion of respondents saw a GC after policy introduction (p < 0.01), fewer did so to better understand their test results (p < 0.01). The proportion of respondents who did not see a GC due to insurance issues/requirements and time restraints was higher among those tested after policy introduction or who did not complete genetic testing (p < 0.01). In multivariate analysis, respondents with a household income of $25,000 or greater were 3-times more likely to complete testing. A GC-mandate policy did not improve decisional conflict or increase the number of deleterious mutations identified and low-income respondents were less likely to complete testing. On the contrary, insurance requirements and time constraints may be preventing individuals at risk from receiving appropriate testing.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 64 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 17%
Student > Bachelor 10 16%
Other 7 11%
Researcher 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 15 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Unspecified 2 3%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 19 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 23 April 2018.
All research outputs
#2,003,056
of 19,413,723 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#820
of 6,541 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,820
of 291,465 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,413,723 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,541 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 291,465 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them