↓ Skip to main content

Supporting Parental Decisions About Genomic Sequencing for Newborn Screening: The NC NEXUS Decision Aid

Overview of attention for article published in Pediatrics, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
Title
Supporting Parental Decisions About Genomic Sequencing for Newborn Screening: The NC NEXUS Decision Aid
Published in
Pediatrics, January 2016
DOI 10.1542/peds.2015-3731e
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lewis, Megan A, Paquin, Ryan S, Roche, Myra I, Furberg, Robert D, Rini, Christine, Berg, Jonathan S, Powell, Cynthia M, Bailey, Donald B

Abstract

Advances in genomic sequencing technology have raised fundamental challenges to the traditional ways genomic information is communicated. These challenges will become increasingly complex and will affect a much larger population in the future if genomics is incorporated into standard newborn screening practice. Clinicians, public health officials, and other stakeholders will need to agree on the types of information that they should seek and communicate to parents. Currently, few evidence-based and validated tools are available to support parental informed decision-making. These tools will be necessary as genomics is integrated into clinical practice and public health systems. In this article we describe how the North Carolina Newborn Exome Sequencing for Universal Screening study is addressing the need to support parents in making informed decisions about the use of genomic testing in newborn screening. We outline the context for newborn screening and justify the need for parental decision support. We also describe the process of decision aid development and the data sources, processes, and best practices being used in development. By the end of the study, we will have an evidenced-based process and validated tools to support parental informed decision-making about the use of genomic sequencing in newborn screening. Data from the study will help answer important questions about which genomic information ought to be sought and communicated when testing newborns.

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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 21%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Student > Master 5 9%
Other 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Other 16 30%
Unknown 6 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 11%
Social Sciences 6 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 11 21%

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 19 January 2016.
All research outputs
#9,154,853
of 16,534,657 outputs
Outputs from Pediatrics
#10,508
of 14,112 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,374
of 373,449 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pediatrics
#141
of 179 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,534,657 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,112 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 41.0. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 373,449 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 179 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.