| Title |
Relating to Participants: How Close Do Biobanks and Donors Really Want to Be?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health Care Analysis, September 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10728-011-0193-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mairi Levitt |
| Abstract |
Modern biobanks typically rely on the public to freely donate genetic data, undergo physical measurements and tests, allow access to medical records and give other personal information by questionnaire or interview. Given the demands on participants it is not surprising that there has been extensive public consultation even before biobanks in the UK and elsewhere began to recruit. This paper considers the different ways in which biobanks have attempted to engage and appeal to their publics and the reaction of potential and actual donors. Whilst those organising biobanks presumably want to be as close to their publics as they need to be in order to successfully recruit and sustain participation in sufficient numbers, the closer the relationship the more obligations and expectations there are on both sides. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 6% |
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Portugal | 1 | 3% |
| Belgium | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 30 | 86% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 31% |
| Researcher | 10 | 29% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 9% |
| Professor | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 8 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 8 | 23% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 14% |
| Philosophy | 4 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 9 | 26% |
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 25 October 2013.
All research outputs
#8,882,501
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Health Care Analysis
#148
of 332 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,708
of 140,974 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Care Analysis
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 332 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 140,974 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.