↓ Skip to main content

The ethics conundrum in Recall by Genotype (RbG) research: Perspectives from birth cohort participants

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
Title
The ethics conundrum in Recall by Genotype (RbG) research: Perspectives from birth cohort participants
Published in
PLOS ONE, August 2018
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0202502
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joel T. Minion, Frances Butcher, Nicholas Timpson, Madeleine J. Murtagh

Abstract

Recall by genotype (RbG) research recruits on the basis of genetic variation. Increased use of this approach presents an ethical conundrum for cohort studies/biobanks: whether to inform individuals of their genetic information and deviate from standard practice of non-disclosure of results, or mask this information at the level of the individual participant. This paper examines the perspectives of research study participants on RbG research. Fifty-three semi-structured interviews were conducted with young adult participants of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC). Topics included understandings of RbG research, expectations around recruitment and communication of research findings. Participants uniformly expressed a deep trust and faith in ALSPAC and considered themselves part of the ALSPAC team. Such perspectives, alongside a limited knowledge of genetics and modest interest in reported research outcomes, meant few participants reported immediate concerns about being recruited by genotype. Our findings highlight the responsibility and duty of care on RbG researchers, and longitudinal studies more generally, and the importance of solidarity, reciprocity and co-production in study-participant relations. As such, we consider existing recommendations for conducting RbG research in longitudinal studies in light of our results and speak to recent changes in the approach used by ALSPAC.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 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 %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 20%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 3%
Lecturer 1 3%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 10 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 3 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 7%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 11 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 19 August 2018.
All research outputs
#18,647,094
of 23,100,534 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#157,266
of 197,129 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#232,875
of 301,794 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,652
of 3,328 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,100,534 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 197,129 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 301,794 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,328 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.