↓ Skip to main content

How should we discuss genetic testing with women newly diagnosed with breast cancer? Design and implementation of a randomized controlled trial of two models of delivering education about treatment-foc…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
179 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
How should we discuss genetic testing with women newly diagnosed with breast cancer? Design and implementation of a randomized controlled trial of two models of delivering education about treatment-focused genetic testing to younger women newly diagnosed with breast cancer
Published in
BMC Cancer, July 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2407-12-320
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kaaren J Watts, Bettina Meiser, Gillian Mitchell, Judy Kirk, Christobel Saunders, Michelle Peate, Jessica Duffy, Patrick J Kelly, Margaret Gleeson, Kristine Barlow-Stewart, Belinda Rahman, Michael Friedlander, Kathy Tucker

Abstract

Germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation testing offered shortly after a breast cancer diagnosis to inform women's treatment choices - treatment-focused genetic testing 'TFGT' - has entered clinical practice in specialist centers and is likely to be soon commonplace in acute breast cancer management, especially for younger women. Yet the optimal way to deliver information about TFGT to younger women newly diagnosed with breast cancer is not known, particularly for those who were not suspected of having a hereditary breast cancer syndrome prior to their cancer diagnosis. Also, little is known about the behavioral and psychosocial impact or cost effectiveness of educating patients about TFGT. This trial aims to examine the impact and efficiency of two models of educating younger women newly diagnosed with breast cancer about genetic testing in order to provide evidence for a safe and effective future clinical pathway for this service.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 179 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 172 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 15%
Researcher 26 15%
Student > Bachelor 16 9%
Professor 10 6%
Other 37 21%
Unknown 30 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 31%
Psychology 28 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 3%
Other 24 13%
Unknown 39 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 21 September 2014.
All research outputs
#13,327,767
of 21,338,376 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#3,128
of 7,667 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,542
of 151,069 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,338,376 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,667 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 151,069 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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