↓ Skip to main content

Informed Consent in Direct‐to‐consumer Personal Genome Testing

Overview of attention for article published in Bioethics, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 Mendeley
Title
Informed Consent in Direct‐to‐consumer Personal Genome Testing
Published in
Bioethics, November 2012
DOI 10.1111/bioe.12004
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eline M Bunnik, A Cecile J W Janssens, Maartje H N Schermer

Abstract

Broad genome-wide testing is increasingly finding its way to the public through the online direct-to-consumer marketing of so-called personal genome tests. Personal genome tests estimate genetic susceptibilities to multiple diseases and other phenotypic traits simultaneously. Providers commonly make use of Terms of Service agreements rather than informed consent procedures. However, to protect consumers from the potential physical, psychological and social harms associated with personal genome testing and to promote autonomous decision-making with regard to the testing offer, we argue that current practices of information provision are insufficient and that there is a place - and a need - for informed consent in personal genome testing, also when it is offered commercially. The increasing quantity, complexity and diversity of most testing offers, however, pose challenges for information provision and informed consent. Both specific and generic models for informed consent fail to meet its moral aims when applied to personal genome testing. Consumers should be enabled to know the limitations, risks and implications of personal genome testing and should be given control over the genetic information they do or do not wish to obtain. We present the outline of a new model for informed consent which can meet both the norm of providing sufficient information and the norm of providing understandable information. The model can be used for personal genome testing, but will also be applicable to other, future forms of broad genetic testing or screening in commercial and clinical settings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 85 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 17%
Student > Master 15 17%
Student > Bachelor 11 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 17 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 10%
Social Sciences 8 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 8%
Philosophy 6 7%
Other 19 22%
Unknown 20 23%
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 12 August 2014.
All research outputs
#14,644,315
of 24,558,777 outputs
Outputs from Bioethics
#812
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,867
of 187,608 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bioethics
#3
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,558,777 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 187,608 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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 72% of its contemporaries.