↓ Skip to main content

A qualitative study of adolescents’ understanding of biobanks and their attitudes toward participation, re‐contact, and data sharing

Overview of attention for article published in American Journal of Medical Genetics. Part A, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
Title
A qualitative study of adolescents’ understanding of biobanks and their attitudes toward participation, re‐contact, and data sharing
Published in
American Journal of Medical Genetics. Part A, March 2017
DOI 10.1002/ajmg.a.38114
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrea M. Murad, Melanie F. Myers, Susan D. Thompson, Rachel Fisher, Armand H. Matheny Antommaria

Abstract

While biobanks have become more prevalent, little is known about adolescents' views of key governance issues. We conducted semi-structured interviews with adolescents between 15 and 17 years old to solicit their views. All interviews were audiotaped and transcribed. Two investigators coded the transcripts and resolved any discrepancies through consensus. We conducted 18 interviews before reaching data saturation. Four participants (22%) had previously heard of a biobank. Many participants had misunderstandings about biobanks, some of which persisted after education. Participants believed that enrolling in a biobank would benefit others through scientific research. Many study participants were unable to identify risks of biobank participation. Thirteen participants (72%) were willing to enroll in a biobank and only one (6%) initially was not. Participants believed that if they were unable to provide assent when enrolled, then they should be re-contacted at the age of majority and their data should not be shared until that time. Participants emphasized the importance of being aware of their enrollment and the possibility of disagreeing with their parents. Participants' misunderstanding of biobanks suggests that assent may not be adequately informed without additional education. While adolescents had positive attitudes toward biobanks, they emphasized the importance of awareness of and involvement in the decision to enroll.

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 readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 23%
Researcher 7 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 13%
Student > Master 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 10 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 26%
Social Sciences 7 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 8%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 11 28%
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 31 October 2017.
All research outputs
#20,884,497
of 25,658,541 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Medical Genetics. Part A
#2,955
of 4,225 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#249,743
of 323,580 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Medical Genetics. Part A
#61
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,658,541 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,225 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 323,580 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 105 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.