↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review of interventions to provide genetics education for primary care

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Primary Care, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 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
A systematic review of interventions to provide genetics education for primary care
Published in
BMC Primary Care, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12875-016-0483-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Milena Paneque, Daniela Turchetti, Leigh Jackson, Peter Lunt, Elisa Houwink, Heather Skirton

Abstract

At least 10 % of patients seen in primary care are said to have a condition in which genetics has an influence. However, patients at risk of genetic disease may not be recognised, while those who seek advice may not be referred or managed appropriately. Primary care practitioners lack knowledge of genetics and genetic testing relevant for daily practice and feel inadequate to deliver genetic services. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate genetics educational interventions in the context of primary care. Following the process for systematic reviews developed by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, we conducted a search of five relevant electronic databases. Primary research papers were eligible for inclusion if they included data on outcomes of interventions regarding genetics education for primary care practitioners. The results from each paper were coded and grouped under themes. Eleven studies were included in the review. The five major themes identified inductively (post hoc) were: prior experience, changes in confidence, changes in knowledge, changes in practice, satisfaction and feedback. In five of the studies, knowledge of practitioners was improved following the educational programmes, but this tended to be in specific topic areas, while practitioner confidence improved in six studies. However, there was little apparent change to practice. There are insufficient studies of relevant quality to inform educational interventions in genetics for primary care practitioners. Educational initiatives should be assessed using changes in practice, as well as in confidence and knowledge, to determine if they are effective in causing significant changes in practice in genetic risk assessment and appropriate management of patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 1%
Unknown 93 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Other 8 9%
Researcher 7 7%
Other 14 15%
Unknown 32 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 10%
Social Sciences 7 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 36 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 13 December 2019.
All research outputs
#5,118,975
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from BMC Primary Care
#702
of 2,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,865
of 378,458 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Primary Care
#18
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,359 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 378,458 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 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 58% of its contemporaries.