↓ Skip to main content

Stakeholders’ perspectives on biobank-based genomic research: systematic review of the literature

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Human Genetics, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
95 Mendeley
Title
Stakeholders’ perspectives on biobank-based genomic research: systematic review of the literature
Published in
European Journal of Human Genetics, March 2015
DOI 10.1038/ejhg.2015.27
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alma Husedzinovic, Dominik Ose, Christoph Schickhardt, Stefan Fröhling, Eva C Winkler

Abstract

The success of biobank-based genomic research is widely dependent on people's willingness to donate their tissue. Thus, stakeholders' opinions should be considered in the development of best practice guidelines for research and recruiting participants. We systematically analyzed the empirical literature describing different stakeholders' views towards ethical questions with regard to type of consent, data sharing and return of incidental findings. Patients are more open to one-time general consent than the public. Only a small proportion desires recontact if the research aim changed. A broad consent model would prevent only a small proportion of patients from participating in research. Although professionals are concerned about a risk of reidentification, patients and the public support data sharing and find that the benefit of research outweighs the potential risk of reidentification. However, they desire detailed information about the privacy protection measures. Regarding the return of incidental findings, the public and professionals focus on clinically actionable results, whereas patients are interested in receiving as much information as possible. For professionals, concrete guidelines that help managing the return of incidental findings should be warranted. For this it would be helpful addressing the different categories - actionable, untreatable and inheritable diseases - upfront with patients and public.European Journal of Human Genetics advance online publication, 4 March 2015; doi:10.1038/ejhg.2015.27.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
South Africa 1 1%
Unknown 92 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 18%
Student > Master 12 13%
Other 7 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 14 15%
Unknown 17 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 26%
Social Sciences 15 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 5%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 18 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 24 September 2019.
All research outputs
#1,561,805
of 22,793,427 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Human Genetics
#287
of 3,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,321
of 257,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Human Genetics
#7
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,793,427 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,432 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 257,855 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.