↓ Skip to main content

Active choice but not too active: Public perspectives on biobank consent models

Overview of attention for article published in Genetics in Medicine, September 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
125 Mendeley
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.
Article details
Title
Active choice but not too active: Public perspectives on biobank consent models
Published in
Genetics in Medicine, September 2011
DOI 10.1097/gim.0b013e31821d2f88
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Despite important recent work, US public attitudes toward specific biobank consent models are not well understood. Public opinion data can help shape efforts to develop ethically sound and publicly trusted mechanisms for informing and consenting prospective biobank donors. The purpose of this study was to explore public perspectives toward a range of consent models currently being used or considered for use among comprehensive US biobanks.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 5 4%
United Kingdom 3 2%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 115 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 22%
Researcher 27 22%
Student > Master 17 14%
Other 8 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 6%
Other 17 14%
Unknown 20 16%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 25%
Social Sciences 19 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 6%
Philosophy 6 5%
Other 25 20%
Unknown 25 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 24 January 2017.
All research outputs
#4,138,094
of 28,667,723 outputs
Outputs from Genetics in Medicine
#1,252
of 3,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,764
of 145,492 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetics in Medicine
#9
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,667,723 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,177 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 145,492 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 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 73% of its contemporaries.