↓ Skip to main content

“You want the right amount of oversight”: interviews with data access committee members and experts on genomic data access

Overview of attention for article published in Genetics in Medicine, January 2016
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 (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
Title
“You want the right amount of oversight”: interviews with data access committee members and experts on genomic data access
Published in
Genetics in Medicine, January 2016
DOI 10.1038/gim.2015.189
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mahsa Shabani, Pascal Borry

Abstract

Genomic data sharing is vital for optimizing the use of public-funded research data. Data access committees (DACs) have been introduced as a core component of governance in controlled-access models. However, the tasks, structure, and functionality of DACs often remain unstudied. This article investigates the role and adequacy of DACs in access reviews from the perspective of DAC members and experts. Twenty semi-structured interviews were conducted with both DAC members engaged in genomic data sharing via controlled-access databases and experts in the field. The respondents indicated that protecting the privacy of data subjects along with recognition of data producers' efforts are the main underlying reasons of access review and the controlled-access model. In reviewing the ethical basis and the scientific aspects of access requests, tools and mechanisms such as consent forms, data access agreements, and guidelines have been used. Nevertheless, DAC members and experts identified shortcomings associated with current approaches that may adversely impact the effectiveness and efficiency of access review. The identified shortcomings of current approaches to access review could be addressed via complementary mechanisms and alternative models of data sharing to facilitate access to data sets in a responsible fashion.Genet Med advance online publication 21 January 2016Genetics in Medicine (2016); doi:10.1038/gim.2015.189.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 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 %
Researcher 7 27%
Other 4 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 15%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Student > Master 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 4 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 8 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 8%
Computer Science 1 4%
Philosophy 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 6 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 06 September 2016.
All research outputs
#2,839,533
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Genetics in Medicine
#997
of 2,943 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,734
of 403,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetics in Medicine
#23
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,943 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 403,256 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.