| Title |
Developing the science and methods of community engagement for genomic research and biobanking in Africa
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Global Health, Epidemiology and Genomics, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1017/gheg.2017.9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
P. Tindana, M. Campbell, P. Marshall, K. Littler, R. Vincent, J. Seeley, J. de Vries, D. Kamuya, the H3Africa Community Engagement Working Group |
| Abstract |
Historically, community engagement (CE) in research has been implemented in the fields of public health, education and agricultural development. In recent years, international discussions on the ethical and practical goals of CE have been extended to human genomic research and biobanking, particularly in the African context. While there is some consensus on the goals and value of CE generally, questions remain about the effectiveness of CE practices and how to evaluate this. Under the auspices of the Human Heredity and Health in Africa Initiative (H3Africa), the H3Africa CE working group organized a workshop in Stellenbosch, South Africa in March 2016 to explore the extent to which communities should be involved in genomic research and biobanking and to examine various methods of evaluating the effectiveness of CE. In this paper, we present the key themes that emerged from the workshop and make a case for the development of a rigorous application, evaluation and learning around approaches for CE that promote a more systematic process of engaging relevant communities. We highlight the key ways in which CE should be embedded into genomic research and biobanking projects. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Kenya | 4 | 19% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 14% |
| South Africa | 2 | 10% |
| Germany | 1 | 5% |
| United States | 1 | 5% |
| Uganda | 1 | 5% |
| Vietnam | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 62% |
| Scientists | 7 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 69 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 17% |
| Unknown | 24 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 19% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 14% |
| Psychology | 4 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 11 | 16% |
| Unknown | 24 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 14 April 2021.
All research outputs
#2,276,733
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Global Health, Epidemiology and Genomics
#12
of 87 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,255
of 323,704 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Global Health, Epidemiology and Genomics
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 87 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 323,704 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.