| Title |
Online Education and e-Consent for GeneScreen, a Preventive Genomic Screening Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Public Health Genomics, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1159/000481359 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
R. Jean Cadigan, Rita Butterfield, Christine Rini, Margaret Waltz, Kristine J. Kuczynski, Kristin Muessig, Katrina A.B. Goddard, Gail E. Henderson |
| Abstract |
Online study recruitment is increasingly popular, but we know little about the decision making that goes into joining studies in this manner. In GeneScreen, a genomic screening study that utilized online education and consent, we investigated participants' perceived ease when deciding to join and their understanding of key study features. Individuals were recruited via mailings that directed them to a website where they could learn more about GeneScreen, consent to participate, and complete a survey. Participants found it easy to decide to join GeneScreen and had a good understanding of study features. Multiple regression analyses revealed that ease of deciding to join was related to confidence in one's genetic self-efficacy, limited concerns about genetic screening, trust in and lack of frustration using the website, and the ability to spend a limited time on the website. Understanding of study features was related to using the Internet more frequently and attaining more information about GeneScreen conditions. The ease of deciding to join a genomic screening study and comprehension of its key features should be treated as different phenomena in research and practice. There is a need for a more nuanced understanding of how individuals respond to web-based consent information. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 12 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 12 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 December 2017.
All research outputs
#5,949,643
of 23,011,300 outputs
Outputs from Public Health Genomics
#109
of 386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,213
of 327,815 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Public Health Genomics
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,011,300 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 386 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 327,815 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 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.