| Title |
A Web-Based Platform for Educating Researchers About Bioethics and Biobanking
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Cancer Education, March 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13187-015-0812-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ivana Sehovic, Clement K. Gwede, Cathy D. Meade, Stephen Sodeke, Rebecca Pentz, Gwendolyn P. Quinn |
| Abstract |
Participation in biobanking among individuals with familial risk for hereditary cancer (IFRs) and underserved/minority populations is vital for biobanking research. To address gaps in researcher knowledge regarding ethical concerns of these populations, we developed a web-based curriculum. Based on formative research and expert panel assessments, a curriculum and website was developed in an integrative, systematic manner. Researchers were recruited to evaluate the curriculum. Public health graduate students were recruited to pilot test the curriculum. All 14 researchers agreed the curriculum was easy to understand, adequately addressed the domains, and contained appropriate post-test questions. The majority evaluated the dialgoue animations as interesting and valuable. Twenty-two graduate students completed the curriculum, and 77 % improved their overall test score. A web-based curriculum is an acceptable and effective way to provide information to researchers about vulnerable populations' biobanking concerns. Future goals are to incorporate the curriculum with larger organizations. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 6% |
| Latvia | 1 | 6% |
| Germany | 1 | 6% |
| United States | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 12 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 81% |
| Scientists | 2 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 26 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 15% |
| Librarian | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 12% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Unknown | 6 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 12% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 27% |
| Unknown | 5 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 March 2015.
All research outputs
#3,318,622
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cancer Education
#95
of 1,182 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,299
of 288,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cancer Education
#4
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,182 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. 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 288,140 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.