↓ Skip to main content

“Not Tied Up Neatly with a Bow”: Professionals’ Challenging Cases in Informed Consent for Genomic Sequencing

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Genetic Counseling, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
78 Mendeley
Title
“Not Tied Up Neatly with a Bow”: Professionals’ Challenging Cases in Informed Consent for Genomic Sequencing
Published in
Journal of Genetic Counseling, April 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10897-015-9842-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ashley N. Tomlinson, Debra Skinner, Denise L. Perry, Sarah R. Scollon, Myra I. Roche, Barbara A. Bernhardt

Abstract

As the use of genomic technology has expanded in research and clinical settings, issues surrounding informed consent for genome and exome sequencing have surfaced. Despite the importance of informed consent, little is known about the specific challenges that professionals encounter when consenting patients or research participants for genomic sequencing. We interviewed 29 genetic counselors and research coordinators with considerable experience obtaining informed consent for genomic sequencing to understand their experiences and perspectives. As part of this interview, 24 interviewees discussed an informed consent case they found particularly memorable or challenging. We analyzed these case examples to determine the primary issue or challenge represented by each case. Challenges fell into two domains: participant understanding, and facilitating decisions about testing or research participation. Challenges related to participant understanding included varying levels of general and genomic literacy, difficulty managing participant expectations, and contextual factors that impeded participant understanding. Challenges related to facilitating decision-making included complicated family dynamics such as disagreement or coercion, situations in which it was unclear whether sequencing research would be a good use of participant time or resources, and situations in which the professional experienced disagreement or discomfort with participant decisions. The issues highlighted in these case examples are instructive in preparing genetics professionals to obtain informed consent for genomic sequencing.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 78 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 27%
Researcher 12 15%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Other 7 9%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 15 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 19%
Social Sciences 6 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 20 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 02 July 2015.
All research outputs
#13,941,015
of 22,800,560 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#650
of 1,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,464
of 265,108 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#7
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,800,560 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,142 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 265,108 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.