Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30791916›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2019

Building a learning community of Australian clinical genomics: a social network study of the Australian Genomic Health Alliance.

Janet C Long, Chiara Pomare, Stephanie Best, Tiffany Boughtwood, Kathryn North, Louise A Ellis, Kate Churruca, Jeffrey Braithwaite

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Janet C LongAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. janet.long@mq.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-0553-682X
Chiara PomareAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
Stephanie BestAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
Tiffany BoughtwoodMurdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Kathryn NorthMurdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Louise A EllisAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
Kate ChurrucaAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
Jeffrey BraithwaiteAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
Macquarie University · AUMurdoch Children's Research Institute · AUAustralian Hearing · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdopting clinical genomics represents a major systems-level intervention requiring diverse expertise and collective learning. The Australian Genomic Health Alliance (Australian Genomics) is strategically linking members and partner organisations to lead the integration of genomic medicine into healthcare across Australia. This study aimed to map and analyse interconnections between members-a key feature of complexity-to capture the collaborations among the genomic community, document learning, assess Australian Genomics' influence and identify key players.

methodsAn online, whole network study collected relational data from members asking them about two time points: baseline, before Australian Genomics started operation in 2016 and current in 2018. Likert style questions assessed the influence of various sources of knowledge on the respondents' genomic practice. A secure link to the online questionnaire was distributed to all members of Australian Genomics during May 2018. Social network data was analysed and visually constructed using Gephi 0.9.2 software, and Likert questions were analysed using chi-squared computations in SPSS. The project was given ethical approval.

resultsResponse rate was 57.81% (222/384). The genomic learning community within Australian Genomics was constructed from the responses of participants. There was a growth in ties from pre-2016 (2925 ties) to 2018 (6381 ties) and an increase in density (0.020 to 0.043) suggesting the strong influence of Australian Genomics in creating this community. Respondents nominated 355 collaborative partners from 24 different countries outside of Australia and 328 partners from within Australia but outside the alliance. Key players were the Australian Genomics Manager, two clinical geneticists and four Operational staff members. Most influential sources of learning were hands on learning, shared decision making, journal articles and conference presentations in contrast to formal courses.

conclusionsThe successful implementation of clinical genomics requires the engagement of multidisciplinary teams across a range of conditions and expertise. Australian Genomics is shown to be facilitating this collaborative process by strategically building a genomic learning community. We demonstrate the importance of social processes in building complex networks as respondents name "hands on learning" and "making group decisions" the most potent influences of their genomic practice. This has implications for genomic implementation, education and work force strategies.

Indexed as

Social NetworkingAustraliaGenomicsHumansLearningSurveys and QuestionnairesComplexity scienceDisseminationGenomicsImplementationLearning communitySocial network analysisSystems change

Identifiers

PMID30791916
PMCPMC6385428
OpenAlexW2923492049

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.