↓ Skip to main content

Newborn Screening: Education, Consent, and the Residual Blood Spot. The Position of the National Society of Genetic Counselors

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Genetic Counseling, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
Title
Newborn Screening: Education, Consent, and the Residual Blood Spot. The Position of the National Society of Genetic Counselors
Published in
Journal of Genetic Counseling, July 2013
DOI 10.1007/s10897-013-9631-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carrie Blout, Cate Walsh Vockley, Amy Gaviglio, Michelle Fox, Brook Croke, Lori Williamson Dean

Abstract

Newborn screening (NBS) is a minimally invasive lifesaving test. There is currently no federal mandate for NBS, thus states determine their own screening panel based on the recommendations of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborn and Children (SACHDNC), which was recently re-chartered as the Discretionary Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children (DACHDNC). After NBS is completed, a couple of residual blood spots remain. While some states allow these spots to be used for public health and scientific research purposes, parents are not always informed about these additional uses. This paper addresses the National Society of Genetic Counselors' (NSGC's) position about NBS and blood spot storage/use and the rationale for these positions. The National Society of Genetic Counselors strongly supports newborn screening for the uniform screening panel of conditions recommended by the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children. NSGC also supports storage and use of blood spot samples by newborn screening laboratories and transparent policies that govern these activities.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 37%
Student > Bachelor 6 20%
Other 4 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Researcher 2 7%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 4 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Social Sciences 3 10%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 5 17%

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 August 2013.
All research outputs
#11,595,152
of 15,184,690 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#645
of 823 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,392
of 159,135 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#12
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,184,690 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 823 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 159,135 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.