Achieving equitable minority representation in genomic biobanking is one of the most difficult challenges faced by researchers today. Capacity building-a framework for research that includes collaborations and on-going engagement-can be used to help researchers, clinicians and communities better understand the process, utility, and clinical application of genomic science. The purpose of this exploratory descriptive study was to examine factors that influence the decision to participate in genomic research, and identify essential components of capacity building with a community at risk of being under-represented in biobanks. Results of focus groups conducted in Central Harlem with 46 participants were analyzed by a collaborative team of community and academic investigators using content analysis and AtlisTi. Key themes identified were: (1) the potential contribution of biobanking to individual and community health, for example the effect of the environment on health, (2) the societal context of the science, such as DNA criminal databases and paternity testing, that may affect the decision to participate, and (3) the researchers' commitment to community health as an outcome of capacity building. These key factors can contribute to achieving equity in biobank participation, and guide genetic specialists in biobank planning and implementation.
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 27 September 2014.
All research outputs
#19,203,427
of 27,861,304 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#890
of 1,356 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,592
of 262,901 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#14
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,861,304 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,356 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 262,901 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
