↓ Skip to main content

Feedback of Individual Genetic Results to Research Participants: Is It Feasible in Europe?

Overview of attention for article published in Biopreservation and Biobanking, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
70 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
Feedback of Individual Genetic Results to Research Participants: Is It Feasible in Europe?
Published in
Biopreservation and Biobanking, April 2016
DOI 10.1089/bio.2015.0115
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

There is growing consensus that individual genetic research results that are scientifically robust, analytically valid, and clinically actionable should be offered to research participants. However, the general practice in European research projects is that results are usually not provided to research participants for many reasons. This article reports on the views of European experts and scholars who are members of the European COST Action CHIP ME IS1303 (Citizen's Health through public-private Initiatives: Public health, Market and Ethical perspectives) regarding challenges to the feedback of individual genetic results to research participants in Europe and potential strategies to address these challenges. A consultation of the COST Action members was conducted through an email survey and a workshop. The results from the consultation were analyzed following a conventional content analysis approach. Legal frameworks, professional guidelines, and financial, organizational, and human resources to support the feedback of results are largely missing in Europe. Necessary steps to facilitate the feedback process include clarifying legal requirements to the feedback of results, developing harmonized European best practices, promoting interdisciplinary and cross-institutional collaboration, designing educational programs and cost-efficient IT-based platforms, involving research ethics committees, and documenting the health benefits and risks of the feedback process. Coordinated efforts at pan-European level are needed to enable equitable, scientifically sound, and socially robust feedback of results to research participants.

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.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 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 Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 69 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Other 8 11%
Student > Master 8 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 15 21%
Unknown 13 19%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 16 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 7%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 11 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 08 May 2017.
All research outputs
#24,996,526
of 27,780,120 outputs
Outputs from Biopreservation and Biobanking
#368
of 421 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#274,021
of 315,390 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biopreservation and Biobanking
#6
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,780,120 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 421 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 315,390 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.