↓ 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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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, The Newborn Screening Task Force on behalf of the NSGC Public Policy Committee

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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 32%
Student > Bachelor 6 18%
Other 4 12%
Researcher 2 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 7 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Social Sciences 3 9%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 8 24%
Attention Score in Context

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 05 August 2013.
All research outputs
#13,892,544
of 22,715,151 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#650
of 1,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,732
of 197,951 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#11
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,715,151 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,141 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 197,951 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.