↓ Skip to main content

Development of Plain Language Supplemental Materials for the Biobank Informed Consent Process

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cancer Education, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
Title
Development of Plain Language Supplemental Materials for the Biobank Informed Consent Process
Published in
Journal of Cancer Education, April 2016
DOI 10.1007/s13187-016-1029-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

Abstract

The US Department of Health and Human Services addresses clear communication in the informed consent process as part of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for revisions to the Common Rule. However, prior research has shown that participants may not fully comprehend research studies despite completion of an informed consent process. Our main goal was to provide plain language information about donation processes to a cancer biobank to supplement an informed consent form. We developed and conducted cognitive testing with supplemental brochures that clearly communicated information about three different models for consent (notice, broad and study-specific) to future use of biospecimens. During the brochure development process, we conducted qualitative, semi-structured, individual, in-person cognitive interviews among 14 women to examine participants' perceptions of the brochures. Each participant provided feedback regarding the understandability, graphics and layout, and cultural appropriateness of the brochures. Our findings demonstrate that these methods may be used to tailor consent form brochures, such as the ones developed here, to other populations. This study therefore adds to our understanding of how best to present content to help women from two different racial groups make informed decisions about participation in a cancer biobank.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 53 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 17%
Student > Master 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Other 12 22%
Unknown 11 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 20%
Social Sciences 8 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Psychology 4 7%
Unspecified 3 6%
Other 13 24%
Unknown 11 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 19 July 2016.
All research outputs
#14,844,479
of 22,860,626 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cancer Education
#572
of 1,136 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,582
of 300,347 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cancer Education
#6
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,860,626 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,136 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 300,347 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 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.