↓ Skip to main content

Differences in preferences for models of consent for biobanks between Black and White women

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Community Genetics, August 2015
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 (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
Title
Differences in preferences for models of consent for biobanks between Black and White women
Published in
Journal of Community Genetics, August 2015
DOI 10.1007/s12687-015-0248-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katherine M. Brown, Bettina F. Drake, Sarah Gehlert, Leslie E. Wolf, James DuBois, Joann Seo, Krista Woodward, Hannah Perkins, Melody S. Goodman, Kimberly A. Kaphingst

Abstract

Biobanks are essential resources, and participation by individuals from diverse groups is needed. Various models of consent have been proposed for secondary research use of biospecimens, differing in level of donor control and information received. Data are needed regarding participant preferences for models of consent, particularly among minorities. We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with 60 women to examine their attitudes about different models of consent. Recruitment was stratified by race (Black/White) and prior biobank participation (yes/no). Two coders independently coded interview transcripts. Qualitative thematic analysis was conducted using NVivo 10. The majority of Black and White participants preferred "broad" consent (i.e., blanket permission for secondary research use of biospecimens), and the second most preferred model for both groups was "study-specific" consent (i.e., consent for each future research study). The qualitative analysis showed that participants selected their most preferred model for 3 major reasons: having enough information, having control over their sample, and being asked for permission. Least preferred was notice model (i.e., participants notified that biospecimens may be used in future research). Attitudes toward models of consent differed somewhat by race and prior biobank participation. Participants preferred models of consent for secondary research use of biospecimens that provided them with both specific and general information, control over their biospecimens, and asked them to give permission for use. Our findings suggest that it will be important for researchers to provide information about future uses of biospecimens to the extent possible and have an explicit permission step for secondary research use.

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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 3%
Unknown 31 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 19%
Researcher 6 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 10 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 16%
Social Sciences 5 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Mathematics 2 6%
Psychology 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 13 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 23 December 2015.
All research outputs
#4,804,243
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Community Genetics
#94
of 378 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,119
of 268,874 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Community Genetics
#2
of 7 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 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 378 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 268,874 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.