↓ Skip to main content

Native Hawaiian Views on Biobanking

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cancer Education, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
Title
Native Hawaiian Views on Biobanking
Published in
Journal of Cancer Education, March 2014
DOI 10.1007/s13187-014-0638-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maile Tauali`i, Elise Leimomi Davis, Kathryn L. Braun, JoAnn Umilani Tsark, Ngiare Brown, Maui Hudson, Wylie Burke

Abstract

Genomic science represents a new frontier for health research and will provide important tools for personalizing health care. Biospecimen-based research is an important mechanism for expanding the genomic research capacity, and indigenous peoples are a target of biospecimen-based research due to their relative isolation and the potential to discover rare or unique genotypes. This study explored Native Hawaiian perceptions of and expectations for biobanking. Ten discussion groups were conducted with Native Hawaiians (N = 92), who first heard a presentation on biobanking. Six themes emerged: (1) biobank governance by the Native Hawaiian community, (2) research transparency, (3) priority of Native Hawaiian health concerns, (4) leadership by Native Hawaiian scientists accountable to community, (5) re-consenting each time specimen is used, and (6) education of Native Hawaiian communities. Considered together, these findings suggest that biobanking should be guided by six principles that comprise "G.R.E.A.T. Research" (Governance, Re-consent, Education, Accountability, Transparency, Research priorities). These recommendations are being shared with biobanking facilities in Hawai'i as they develop protocols for biobanking participation, governance, and education. These findings also inform researchers and indigenous peoples throughout the world who are working on biobanking and genomic research initiatives in their nations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 2%
South Africa 1 2%
Unknown 64 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 15%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Professor 3 5%
Other 17 26%
Unknown 17 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 18%
Social Sciences 9 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Philosophy 3 5%
Other 13 20%
Unknown 23 35%
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 22 April 2014.
All research outputs
#7,443,503
of 22,753,345 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cancer Education
#295
of 1,127 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,027
of 225,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cancer Education
#4
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,753,345 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,127 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
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 225,170 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.