↓ Skip to main content

Informed consent and registry-based research - the case of the Danish circumcision registry

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
Title
Informed consent and registry-based research - the case of the Danish circumcision registry
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12910-017-0212-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas Ploug, Søren Holm

Abstract

Research into personal health data holds great potential not only for improved treatment but also for economic growth. In these years many countries are developing policies aimed at facilitating such research often under the banner of 'big data'. A central point of debate is whether the secondary use of health data requires informed consent if the data is anonymised. In 2013 the Danish Minister of Health established a new register collecting data about all ritual male childhood circumcisions in Denmark. The main purpose of the register was to enable future research into the consequences of ritual circumcision. This article is a study into the case of the Danish Circumcision Registry. We show that such a registry may lead to various forms of harm such as 1) overreaching social pressure, 2) stigmatization, 3) medicalization of a religious practice, 4) discrimination, and 5) polarised research, and that a person may therefore have a strong and legitimate interest in deciding whether or not such data should be collected and/or used in research. This casts doubt on the claim that the requirement of informed consent could and should be waived for all types of secondary research into registries. We finally sketch a new model of informed consent - Meta consent - aimed at striking a balance between the interests in promoting research and at the same time protecting the individual. Research participants may have a strong and legitimate interest in deciding whether or not their data should be collected and used for registry-based research whether or not their data is anonymised.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 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 %
Student > Master 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Researcher 4 8%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 17 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 6 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Neuroscience 3 6%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Other 13 25%
Unknown 19 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 20 August 2022.
All research outputs
#4,666,748
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#462
of 1,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,530
of 317,091 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#8
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,016 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 317,091 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.