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 |
Obtaining informed consent for genomics research in Africa: analysis of H3Africa consent documents
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Medical Ethics, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1136/medethics-2015-102796 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nchangwi Syntia Munung, Patricia Marshall, Megan Campbell, Katherine Littler, Francis Masiye, Odile Ouwe-Missi-Oukem-Boyer, Janet Seeley, D J Stein, Paulina Tindana, Jantina de Vries |
| Abstract |
The rise in genomic and biobanking research worldwide has led to the development of different informed consent models for use in such research. This study analyses consent documents used by investigators in the H3Africa (Human Heredity and Health in Africa) Consortium. A qualitative method for text analysis was used to analyse consent documents used in the collection of samples and data in H3Africa projects. Thematic domains included type of consent model, explanations of genetics/genomics, data sharing and feedback of test results. Informed consent documents for 13 of the 19 H3Africa projects were analysed. Seven projects used broad consent, five projects used tiered consent and one used specific consent. Genetics was mostly explained in terms of inherited characteristics, heredity and health, genes and disease causation, or disease susceptibility. Only one project made provisions for the feedback of individual genetic results. H3Africa research makes use of three consent models-specific, tiered and broad consent. We outlined different strategies used by H3Africa investigators to explain concepts in genomics to potential research participants. To further ensure that the decision to participate in genomic research is informed and meaningful, we recommend that innovative approaches to the informed consent process be developed, preferably in consultation with research participants, research ethics committees and researchers in Africa. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 | 2 | 12% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 6% |
| France | 1 | 6% |
| Canada | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 12 | 71% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 65% |
| Scientists | 3 | 18% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 12% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 129 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 24 | 18% |
| Researcher | 24 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 23 | 18% |
| Unknown | 33 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 18% |
| Social Sciences | 14 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 11 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 30 | 23% |
| Unknown | 37 | 28% |
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 09 February 2016.
All research outputs
#2,875,731
of 22,834,308 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Ethics
#1,184
of 3,415 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,430
of 388,302 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Ethics
#19
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,834,308 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 3,415 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.8. 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 388,302 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 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 50% of its contemporaries.