↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Qualitative user evaluation of a revised pharmacogenetic educational toolkit

Overview of attention for article published in Pharmacogenomics and Personalized Medicine, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
Title
Qualitative user evaluation of a revised pharmacogenetic educational toolkit
Published in
Pharmacogenomics and Personalized Medicine, September 2018
DOI 10.2147/pgpm.s169648
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachel Mills, Susanne B Haga

Abstract

Pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing is a leading application for personalized and precision medicine; however, there are barriers, including limited provider and patient understanding, which affect its uptake. There is a need for tools that can enhance the patient and provider experience with testing and promoting the shared and informed decision-making. In this study, we sought to gather additional feedback on a PGx toolkit comprised of four educational tools that had been previously evaluated through an online survey by pharmacists. Specifically, we conducted semi-structured interviews with pharmacists and members of the public regarding their understanding and utility of the toolkit and its individual components. Participants found three of the four toolkit components, a test information sheet, flipbook, and results sheet, to be useful and important. The fourth component, results card, was viewed less favorably. Participants differed in their preference for medical jargon and detailed results nomenclature (namely star * alleles). User input during the development of educational materials is essential for optimizing utilization, effectiveness, and comprehension.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 14%
Student > Master 5 12%
Researcher 5 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 3 7%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 15 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 7%
Psychology 3 7%
Linguistics 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Other 9 21%
Unknown 18 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 10 September 2018.
All research outputs
#14,714,626
of 25,748,735 outputs
Outputs from Pharmacogenomics and Personalized Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,440
of 346,763 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pharmacogenomics and Personalized Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,748,735 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
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 346,763 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 50% of its contemporaries.
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