↓ Skip to main content

Genomic information and a person’s right not to know: A closer look at variations in hypothetical informational preferences in a German sample

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
12 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
Title
Genomic information and a person’s right not to know: A closer look at variations in hypothetical informational preferences in a German sample
Published in
PLOS ONE, June 2018
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0198249
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laura Flatau, Markus Reitt, Gunnar Duttge, Christian Lenk, Barbara Zoll, Wolfgang Poser, Alexandra Weber, Urs Heilbronner, Marcella Rietschel, Jana Strohmaier, Rebekka Kesberg, Jonas Nagel, Thomas G. Schulze

Abstract

In clinical practice and in research, there is an ongoing debate on how to return incidental and secondary findings of genetic tests to patients and research participants. Previous investigations have found that most of the people most of the time are in favor of full disclosure of results. Yet, the option to reject disclosure, based on the so-called right not to know, can be valuable especially for some vulnerable subgroups of recipients. In the present study we investigated variations in informational preferences in the context of genetic testing in a large and diverse German sample. This survey examined health care professionals, patients, participants of genetic counseling sessions and members of the general population (N = 518). Survey participants were assessed regarding their openness to learning about findings under various hypothetical scenarios, as well as their attitudes about the doctor-patient-relationship in a disclosure situation and about informational transfer to third parties. While the majority of participants wanted to learn about their findings, the extent of support of disclosure varied with features of the hypothetical diagnostic scenarios (e.g., controllability of disease; abstract vs. concrete scenario description) and demographic characteristics of the subjects. For example, subjects with higher levels of education were more selective with regards to the kind of information they want to receive than those with lower levels of education. We discuss implications of these findings for the debate about the right not to know and for the clinical practice of informed consent procedures.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Researcher 6 12%
Other 5 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Student > Master 5 10%
Other 12 23%
Unknown 12 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 15%
Social Sciences 7 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 10%
Psychology 4 8%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 15 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 37. 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 18 January 2022.
All research outputs
#1,025,146
of 24,214,995 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#13,495
of 208,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,091
of 331,902 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#278
of 3,234 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,214,995 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 208,298 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 331,902 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,234 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 91% of its contemporaries.