| Title |
Coverage of genomic medicine: information gap between lay public and scientists
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy, August 2012
|
| DOI | 10.2147/rmhp.s33661 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yuya Sugawara, Hiroto Narimatsu, Akira Fukao |
| Abstract |
The sharing of information between the lay public and medical professionals is crucial to the conduct of personalized medicine using genomic information in the near future. Mass media, such as newspapers, can play an important role in disseminating scientific information. However, studies on the role of newspaper coverage of genome-related articles are highly limited. We investigated the coverage of genomic medicine in five major Japanese newspapers (Asahi, Mainichi, Yomiuri, Sankei, and Nikkei) using Nikkei Telecom and articles in scientific journals in PubMed from 1995 to 2009. The number of genome-related articles in all five newspapers temporarily increased in 2000, and began continuously decreasing thereafter from 2001 to 2009. Conversely, there was a continuous increasing trend in the number of genome-related articles in PubMed during this period. The numbers of genome-related articles among the five major newspapers from 1995 to 2009 were significantly different (P = 0.002). Commentaries, research articles, and articles about companies were the most frequent in 2001 and 2003, when the number of genome-related articles transiently increased in the five newspapers. This study highlights the significant gap between newspaper coverage and scientific articles in scientific journals. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 13 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 31% |
| Researcher | 4 | 31% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 23% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 1 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 31% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 23% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 15% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 2 | 15% |
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 02 August 2012.
All research outputs
#16,188,873
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Risk Management and Healthcare Policy
#343
of 735 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,745
of 179,468 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Risk Management and Healthcare Policy
#3
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 735 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 179,468 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.