You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
‘It is an entrustment’: Broad consent for genomic research and biobanks in sub‐Saharan Africa
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Developing World Bioethics, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1111/dewb.12178 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Paulina Tindana, Sassy Molyneux, Susan Bull, Michael Parker |
| Abstract |
In recent years, there has been an increase in the establishment of biobanks for genetic and genomic studies around the globe. One example of this is the Human Heredity and Health in Africa Initiative (H3Africa), which has established biobanks in the sub-region to facilitate future indigenous genomic studies. The concept of 'broad consent' has been proposed as a mechanism to enable potential research participants in biobanks to give permission for their samples to be used in future research studies. However, questions remain about the acceptability of this model of consent. Drawing on findings from empirical research about the role of trust in decision-making, we argue that an account of entrustment may be an appropriate way of addressing current challenges of seeking consent for biobank research in Africa. We propose a set of key points to consider that can support the proposed entrustment framework. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 17% |
| Unknown | 15 | 83% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 72% |
| Scientists | 3 | 17% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 73 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 4 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 17 | 23% |
| Unknown | 25 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 5% |
| Engineering | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 15 | 21% |
| Unknown | 27 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 14 July 2019.
All research outputs
#2,816,344
of 23,007,053 outputs
Outputs from Developing World Bioethics
#48
of 301 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,998
of 327,891 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Developing World Bioethics
#3
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,053 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 301 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 327,891 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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 72% of its contemporaries.